Tsushima tragedy

128
Tsushima tragedy


110 years ago, on May 27-28, 1905, the Tsushima naval battle took place. This naval battle was the last decisive battle of the Russo-Japanese War and one of the most tragic pages in the Russian military annals. Russian 2nd Pacific Squadron fleet under the command of Vice Admiral Zinovy ​​Petrovich Rozhdestvensky suffered a crushing defeat from the Imperial Navy of Japan under the command of Admiral Togo Heihatiro.



The Russian squadron was destroyed: 19 ships were sunk, 2 were blown up by their crew, 7 ships and ships were captured, 6 ships and ships were interned in neutral ports, only 3 ships and 1 transport broke through to their own. The Russian fleet lost a combat core - 12 armored ships intended for linear squadron combat (including 4 newest battleships of the Borodino class). Out of more than 16 thousand of the squadron's crew, more than 5 thousand people died and drowned, more than 7 thousand people were taken prisoner, more than 2 thousand were interned, 870 people came out to their own. At the same time, Japanese losses were minimal: 3 destroyers, more than 600 people were killed and wounded.

The Tsushima battle was the largest in the pre-dreadnought armored fleet era and finally broke the will to resist the military-political leadership of the Russian Empire. Tsushima did terrible damage to the Russian navy, which had already lost the 1 Pacific Squadron in Port Arthur. Now the main forces of the Baltic Fleet have perished. Only by great efforts the Russian Empire was able to restore the fleet’s combat capability for the First World War. Tsushima disaster inflicted enormous damage on the prestige of the Russian Empire. Petersburg succumbed to social and political pressure and went to peace with Tokyo.

It is worth noting that in military-strategic terms, Tsushima meant little, despite the heavy losses of the fleet and the negative moral effect. Russia lost control of the situation at sea for a long time, and the fall of Port Arthur with the death of the 1 Pacific squadron put an end to this question. The outcome of the war was decided on land and depended on the moral-volitional qualities of the military-political leadership and the resources of the countries. Japan was completely depleted in military material, economic, financial and demographic terms.

The patriotic upsurge in the Japanese Empire has already faded, overwhelmed by material difficulties and severe losses. Even the Tsushima victory triggered only a brief flash of enthusiasm. The human resources of Japan were exhausted, among the prisoners were old men and almost children. There was no money, the treasury was empty, despite the financial support of the United States and England. The Russian army, despite the failure lane, mainly caused by unsatisfactory command, only entered into full force. A decisive victory on land could lead Japan to a military-political catastrophe. Russia had the opportunity to throw the Japanese from the mainland and take Korea, return Port Arthur, and win the war. However, St. Petersburg broke down and, under pressure from the “world community,” went to a shameful world. Russia was able to take revenge and regain the honor only under IV Stalin, in 1945 year.

Beginning of the campaign

Underestimation of the enemy, shappy-handed moods, extreme self-confidence of the government, as well as sabotage of certain forces (like S. Witte, who convinced everyone that Japan would not be able to start a war earlier than 1905 due to lack of money), led to that Russia did not have in the Far East, sufficient forces, as well as the necessary shipbuilding and repair capacities. At the very beginning of the war, it became obvious that the Port Arthur squadron needed to be strengthened. The need to strengthen the naval forces in the Far East was repeatedly pointed out by Admiral Makarov, but nothing was done during his lifetime.

The death of the battleship "Petropavlovsk", when almost the entire crew of the flagship was killed, along with the commander of the squadron Makarov, had a negative effect on the combat capability of the Pacific squadron. Makarov did not find an adequate replacement for the war, which was another evidence of the general degradation of the Russian empire and, in particular, of the rottenness and weakness of the military leadership. After this, the new commander of the fleet in the Pacific, Nikolai Skrydlov, raised the question of sending significant reinforcements to the Far East. In April 1904, the principal decision was made to send reinforcements to the Far East. The 2 Pacific Squadron was headed by Chief of the Main Naval Staff Zinovy ​​Petrovich Rozhestvensky. Younger flagships were appointed Rear Admiral Dmitry von Felkerszam (he died a few days before the Tsushima battle) and Oskar Adolfist Enquist.

According to the original plan, the 2-I Pacific Squadron was to strengthen the 1-Pacific Squadron and create a decisive naval superiority over the Japanese fleet in the Far East. This led to the release from the sea of ​​Port Arthur, the violation of the sea communications of the Japanese army. In the future, this should have led to the defeat of the Japanese army on the mainland and the lifting of the siege of Port Arthur. With such a correlation of forces (battleships and cruisers of the 2 th Pacific Squadron plus squad battleships of the 1 th Pacific Squadron), the Japanese fleet was doomed to defeat in open battle.

The formation of the squadron proceeded slowly, but the events in the Yellow Sea on August 10, 1904, when the 1st Pacific Squadron under the command of Vitgeft (died in this battle) could not use the available opportunities to inflict serious damage to the Japanese fleet and break through part of the forces into Vladivostok, forced speed up the start of the hike. Although after the battle in the Yellow Sea, when the 1st Pacific Squadron practically ceased to exist as an organized combat force (especially with regard to morale), it refused to break through to Vladivostok and began to transfer people, guns and shells to the land front, the campaign of Rozhdestvensky's squadron had already lost original meaning. By itself, the 2nd Pacific Squadron was not strong enough for independent action. A more sensible solution would be to organize a cruising war against Japan.

On August 23, a meeting of representatives of the maritime command and some ministers was held in Peterhof under the chairmanship of Emperor Nicholas II. Some participants warned against the hasty departure of the squadron, pointing to poor preparation and weakness of the fleet, the difficulty and duration of the sea voyage, the possibility of the fall of Port Arthur before the arrival of the 2 Pacific Squadron. It was proposed to postpone the dispatch of the squadron (in fact, it had to be sent before the start of the war). However, under pressure from the maritime command, including Admiral Rozhestvensky, the question of dispatch was resolved positively.

The completion and repair of ships, supply problems, etc., delayed the exit of the fleet. Only September 11 squadron moved to Revel, stood there for about a month and moved to Libau to replenish coal reserves and accept materials and cargo. 15 October 1904 d. 2 Squadron left Libava as part of 7 battleships, 1 armored cruiser, 7 light cruisers, 2 auxiliary cruisers, 8 destroyers and a detachment of transports. Together with the detachment of Rear Admiral Nikolai Nebogatov, which later joined the forces of Rozhestvensky, the 2 Pacific squadron reached 47 naval units (of which 38 was combat units). The main combat force of the squadron consisted of four new squadron battleships of the Borodino type: "Prince Suvorov", "Alexander III", "Borodino" and "Eagle". More or less they could have been supported by the high-speed battleship Oslyabya, but he had a weak reservation. Skillful use of these battleships could lead to the defeat of the Japanese, but this chance was not used by the Russian command. The squadron planned to increase the cruising component by purchasing 7 cruisers abroad, in order to strengthen the strength of Rozhdestvensky's squadron, but this was not possible.

In general, the squadron was very diverse in shock power, booking, speed, maneuverability, which seriously worsened its combat capabilities and became the cause of defeat. A similar negative picture was observed in the personnel, both command and private. The personnel recruited hastily, he had a weak combat training. As a result, the squadron was not a single fighting organism and could not become one during the long march.

The campaign itself was accompanied by big problems. It was necessary to go about 18 thousand miles, not in the path of its own repair base and supply points. Therefore, the issues of repair, supply of ships with fuel, water, food, crew treatment, etc. had to be resolved by ourselves. To avoid a possible attack by Japanese destroyers on the way, Admiral Rozhdestvensky of the squadron route kept a secret, deciding to enter the French ports without prior approval, relying on the military alliance of Russia and France. The supply of coal was transferred to a German trading company. She was supposed to put coal in the places indicated by the Russian naval command. Some foreign and Russian companies took over the supply. For repairs on the way they took with them a special steamboat workshop. This vessel and a number of other transports with cargoes of various purposes made up the floating base of the squadron.

Additional stockpiles of ammunition needed for firing practice were loaded onto Irtysh transport, but shortly before the start of the march an accident occurred on it and the transport was delayed for repair. Ammunition removed and sent by rail to Vladivostok. “Irtysh”, after repair, caught up with the squadron, but without shells, delivering only coal. As a result, so poorly trained crews lost the opportunity to practice shooting on the road. To clarify the situation on the way to all the states, near the shores of which the Russian fleet passed, special agents were sent, who were supposed to monitor and inform about everything Admiral Rozhestvensky.

The campaign of the Russian squadron was accompanied by rumors about the ambush of Japanese destroyers. As a result, the Hull incident occurred. Because of the mistakes of the command in the construction of the squadron, when the squadron passed on Dogger Bank on the night of October 22, the battleships first attacked English fishing vessels, and then fired on their cruisers Dmitry Donskoy and Aurora. The cruiser "Aurora" received several injuries, two people were injured. October 26 squadron came to Spanish Vigo, where she stopped to investigate the incident. This led to a diplomatic conflict with England. Russia was forced to pay a large fine.

November 1 The Russian ships left Vigo and on November 3 arrived in Tangier. Having immersed fuel, water and food, the fleet, according to the previously developed plan, was divided. The main part of the 2 Pacific squadron, including new battleships, bypassed Africa from the south. Two old battleships, light ships and transports under the command of Admiral Völkerzam, who could pass the Suez Canal through their draft, moved through the Mediterranean and Red Sea.

The main forces of 28-29 December came to Madagascar. 6-7 January 1905 was joined by the Völkersam squad. Both groups joined in the bay Nosi-be on the west coast of the island, where the French allowed parking. The march of the main forces to bypass Africa was extremely difficult. Before the Canary Islands, British cruisers followed our ships. The situation was tense, the guns loaded and the squadron was preparing to repel the attack.

Along the way there was no good parking. Coal had to be loaded directly into the sea. In addition, the squadron commander, in order to reduce the number of stops, decided to make long transitions. Therefore, the ships took a large amount of additional coal. For example, new battleships instead of 1 thousand tons of coal took 2 thousand tons, which, with their low stability, was a problem. In order to accept such a large amount of fuel, coal was placed in rooms that were not designed for this purpose - batteries, residential decks, cabin, etc. This greatly complicated the life of the crew, and so suffered from the tropical heat. Loading itself with ocean waves and intense heat was difficult, taking a lot of time from crews (on average, battleships took 40-60 tons of coal per hour). People exhausted by hard work could not rest properly. In addition, all the premises were littered with coal, and it was impossible to engage in combat training.





Photo source hike: http://tsushima.su

Change task. The continuation of the campaign

In Madagascar, the Russian squadron stood until March 16. This was due to the fall of Port Arthur, which destroyed the initial tasks of the squadron. The initial plan to unite the two squadrons in Port Arthur and intercept the strategic initiative from the enemy was completely destroyed. The delay was also associated with complications in fuel supply and the problems of repairing ships in the roadstead.

Common sense demanded that the squadron be withdrawn. The news of the fall of Port Arthur even inspired Rozhestvensky to doubt the expediency of the march. True, Rozhestvensky confined himself only to the resignation report and hints about the need to return the ships. After the end of the war, the admiral wrote: “If I had at least a spark of civil courage, I would have to shout to the whole world: take care of these last fleet resources! Do not send them to be exterminated! But I didn’t have the right spark. ”

However, the negative news from the front, where after the battle of Liaoyan and Shahe and the fall of Port Arthur, the battle of Mukden occurred, which also ended with the withdrawal of the Russian army, forced the government to make a fatal mistake. The squadron was supposed to arrive in Vladivostok, and this was an extremely difficult task. At the same time, only Rozhdestvensky believed that the breakthrough of the squadron to Vladivostok would be a success, at least at the cost of losing some of the ships. The government still believed that the arrival of the Russian fleet at the theater of military operations would change the entire strategic situation and allow it to establish control over the Sea of ​​Japan.



Back in October 1904, the famous naval theorist 2 rank captain Nikolai Klado, under the pseudonym Priboy, published a series of articles in the newspaper Novoye Vremya on the analysis of the Pacific Squadron 2. In them, the captain gave a detailed analysis of the performance characteristics of our and enemy ships, comparing the training of naval command and crews. The conclusion was hopeless: the Russian squadron had no chance in a collision with the Japanese fleet. The author harshly criticized the naval command and personally the admiral general, Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich, who was the chief commander of the fleet and naval department. Clade offered to mobilize all the forces of the Baltic and Black Sea fleets. So, on the Black Sea there were four battleships of the type “Ekaterina”, the battleships “Twelve Apostles” and “Rostislav”, a relatively new dodrednout “Three Saints”, was almost completed “Prince Potyomkin-Tavrichesky”. Only after such a mobilization of all available forces could the reinforced fleet be sent to the Pacific Ocean. For these articles, Claudo was deprived of all ranks and dismissed from service, but subsequent events confirmed the correctness of his main idea - the 2-I Pacific Squadron could not successfully resist the enemy.

11 December 1904, under the chairmanship of General Admiral Alexei Alexandrovich, a naval meeting was held. After some doubts, it was decided to send reinforcement squadron Rozhestvensky from the remaining ships of the Baltic Fleet. Rozhestvensky initially accepted the idea negatively, believing that “rot in the Baltic Sea” would not strengthen, but weaken the squadron. He believed that it would be better to reinforce the 2 th Pacific squadron with the Black Sea battleships. However, Rozhestvensky was refused in the Black Sea ships, since it was necessary to bargain with Turkey in order for the battleships to pass through the straits. After it became known that Port Arthur fell and the 1-I Pacific Squadron died, Rozhestvensky even agreed to such an increase.

Rozhdestvensky was ordered to wait for reinforcements in Madagascar. The first to arrive was a squadron of 1 rank 2nd rank Leonid Dobrotvorsky (two new cruisers Oleg and Izumrud, two torpedo boats), which was part of the squadron of Rozhdestvensky, but fell behind due to ship repairs. In December, 1904 began to equip a detachment under the command of Nikolai Nebogatov (3-I Pacific Squadron). The battalion battleship “Nikolay I” with short-range artillery, three armored ships of coastal defense - “General-Admiral Apraksin”, “Admiral Senyavin” and “Admiral Ushakov” (the ships had good artillery, but had poor navigability) and old armored the cruiser "Vladimir Monomah". In addition, the guns of these battleships were badly worn during the training of personnel. In the whole of the 3 Pacific squadron there was not a single modern ship, and its combat value was low. Nebogatov ships left Libava 3 February 1905 of the year, February 19 - passed Gibraltar, March 12-13 - Suez. Another “overtaking detachment” was being prepared (the second echelon of the Nebogatov squadron), but for various reasons it was not sent to the Pacific Ocean.

Rozhestvensky did not want to wait for the arrival of the Nebogatov detachment, looking at the old ships as an extra burden. Hoping that the Japanese would not have time to quickly repair the damage they had previously received and bring the fleet to full readiness, the Russian admiral wanted to break through to Vladivostok, and decided not to wait for Nebogatov. Relying on the base in Vladivostok, Rozhestvensky hoped to develop operations against the enemy and fight for supremacy at sea.

However, problems with the supply of fuel delayed the squadron for two months. All this time there was a drop in the combat capability of the squadron. They fired a little and only on fixed shields. The results were bad, which worsened the morale of the crews. Joint maneuvering also showed that the squadron was not ready for the task. Forced inaction, nervousness of command, unusual climate and heat, lack of ammunition for firing, all this adversely affected the morale of the crew and reduced the combat capability of the Russian fleet. Discipline has fallen, which was already low (on ships there was a significant percentage of “penalty box”, which they “sent” with pleasure on a long hike), cases of disobedience and insults to personnel, and a gross violation of order by the officers themselves have become frequent.

Only 16 March squadron again began to move. Admiral Rozhestvensky chose the shortest path - through the Indian Ocean and the Strait of Malacca. Coal reception was carried out in the open sea. April 8 squadron was held at Singapore and April 14 stopped at Kamran Bay. Here the ships were to carry out maintenance, take coal and other stocks. However, at the request of the French squadron moved to Vanfong Bay. 8 May Nebogatov squad arrived here. The situation was tense. The French demanded the speedy departure of the Russian ships. There was a fear that the Japanese would attack the Russian squadron.



Action plan

May 14 squadron Rozhestvensky continued to hike. For a breakthrough to Vladivostok Rozhestvensky chose the shortest path - through the Korea Strait. On the one hand, it was the shortest and most convenient route, the widest and deepest of all the straits connecting the Pacific Ocean with Vladivostok. On the other hand, the path of the Russian ships lay near the main bases of the Japanese fleet, which made the meeting with the enemy very likely. Rozhestvensky understood this, but he thought that even at the cost of losing a few ships, they would be able to break through. At the same time, giving the strategic initiative to the enemy, Rozhestvensky did not accept the detailed plan of the battle and confined himself to a general installation for a breakthrough. This was partly due to the poor training of the crew of the squadron, during the long hike 2-I Pacific squadron was able to learn only joint navigation in the wake column, and could not maneuver and perform complex rebuilds.

Thus, the 2-I Pacific Squadron was set up to break through to the north, to Vladivostok. The ships had to fight off the enemy in order to break through to the north, and not to beat him. The battleships of all units (1, 2, and 3, armored units of Rozhestvensky, Volkerzam, and Nebogatov) were to act against the Japanese battleships, maneuvering to the north. Part of the cruisers and destroyers received the task to cover the battleships from the attacks of the Japanese torpedo-ness and to transport command to serviceable ships in the event of the death of the flagships. The remaining cruisers and destroyers had to protect auxiliary vessels and transports, remove the crews from the dying armadillos. Rozhestvensky also determined the order of command. In the case of the death of the flagship of the battleship Prince Suvorov, Captain 1 of the rank N. M. Bukhvostov commanded the command, Alexander III commander, in case of failure of this ship, the captain of the rank 1 P. I. Serebryannikov armadillo "Borodino", etc.


Commander of the Russian squadron Zinovy ​​Petrovich Rozhestvensky

To be continued ...
128 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +16
    27 May 2015 06: 44
    Thank you so much for the article dedicated to this bloody page of Russian history. In my humble opinion, the Russo-Japanese War was a watershed in the history of our country. And Tsushima is one of the extremes of this war. The Russian fleet did not know a more humiliating and comprehensive defeat. And this despite the unprecedented prowess of the Russian sailor and examples of great courage and ingenuity of the average officers. (Holding afloat and in battle the battleship Eagle - for example). It was with Tsushima that the process of the decline of the monarchy in Russia began with all the consequences. (IMHO naturally)
    1. +11
      27 May 2015 08: 55
      It was with Tsushima that the process of the decline of the monarchy in Russia began with all the consequences. (IMHO naturally)
      The decline of the empire began with the coming to power of Nicholas II, who was not even prepared for the role of autocrat, the result - the death of the empire. hi
      1. -5
        27 May 2015 13: 02
        The decline of the empire began with the coming to power of Nicholas II, who was not even prepared for the role of autocrat, the result - the death of the empire.
        Under Commander-in-Chief Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov, the Russian Imperial Army achieved OUTSTANDING successes in WW1, defeating the Turkish and Austro-Hungarian forces and creating conditions for a decisive defeat of the German forces on the eastern front. The death of the empire was caused by an internal policy that was too liberal for wartime, the extremely successful "policy of indirect influence" of the German General Staff, and the treacherous intrigues of the British Cabinet with their policy of preventing Russia from entering the Balkans, the Middle East and the Black Sea straits. At the end of WW1, the "allies" blatantly betrayed Russia, as well as at the end of WW2. am Russia has been split, torn and remains so to a certain extent today. Due to the events of the 20th century, the population of the Russian Federation does not count MULTIPLE HUNDREDS of millions of people. I was recently shocked, in Iran already 80 million people !!! And growing by almost a million annually.
        1. 0
          27 May 2015 15: 33
          The death of the empire was caused by an internal policy too liberal for wartime, the extremely successful "policy of indirect influence" of the German General Staff and the treacherous intrigues of the British Cabinet with their policy of preventing Russia from entering the Balkans, the Middle East and the Black Sea straits.
          Have you carefully studied history? Before the revolution of 1917 in Russia was self-power! And you say that Nicholas II has nothing to do with it. hi
          1. +3
            27 May 2015 15: 54
            Have you carefully studied history? Before the revolution of 1917 in Russia was self-power! And you say that Nicholas II has nothing to do with it.
            And I didn’t say that Nicholas II had nothing to do with it. He was carried away by the war and lost sight of the ministers and generals. Or are you talking about Nikolai like "THIS IS PUTIN'S GUILTY"? laughing I objected about the time of the "decline of the empire" laughing
            1. +1
              27 May 2015 17: 33
              hi
              Or are you talking about Nicholas like "THIS IS PUTIN'S GUILTY"? I objected about the time of the "decline of the empire"
              In your opinion, Gorbachev is also not to blame for the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the USSR. wink
              1. +2
                27 May 2015 17: 39
                it’s not the Tsar who organized the revolution ... bully "perestroika" - yes, the secretary general.
                1. s1н7т
                  0
                  27 May 2015 18: 56
                  Both wanted "the best" (in their opinion), but it turned out as it should have been logically.
                  1. 0
                    27 May 2015 19: 20
                    the moment is important here that Japan was and will be a geopolitical adversary of Russia (and Eurasia in general - any Eurasian association - it was not for nothing that Khan Khubilai even then threw the great-grandfathers of future citizens of Russia and the USSR to resolve the Japanese issue - but "kamikaze" damn wind - a storm and ships "Chinese-built" well, you know further - the fleet of our ancestors sank)

                    Then the descendants of the Khubilai wars, together with the Slavs, had to repeatedly discard the samurai from the continent in 1945

                    Just remember - this will not end yet - the samurai will bring problems - God forbid that now it’s not us but the Chinese (there are a lot of these - they won’t smile )
                    1. Prince Kalita
                      -1
                      28 May 2015 09: 38
                      As for Khubilai and the Japanese, this is an invention of Western historians. The Japanese were subordinate to Khubilai as their commander in chief, for they were part of his troops.
                    2. Prince Kalita
                      0
                      28 May 2015 09: 38
                      As for Khubilai and the Japanese, this is an invention of Western historians. The Japanese were subordinate to Khubilai as their commander in chief, for they were part of his troops.
              2. +1
                27 May 2015 19: 51
                In your opinion, Gorbachev is also not to blame for the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the USSR.
                In my opinion, if the descendants of Stolypin would come to the top of power, and not the former tractor driver and party nomenklatura Gorbachev (Khrushchev, Malenkov, Brezhnev, etc. of mediocrity), then the destruction of the Russian Empire recreated by Stalin in the person of the USSR did not happen, and Warsaw, perhaps , would be a county Russian city, and even more so would not exist even in the theory of "Veliko.ukriya"
                1. 0
                  27 May 2015 20: 06
                  In my opinion, if descendants of Stolypin would come to power
                  So, as I wrote above? If Nicholas 2 were a strong-willed leader and autocrat, history would have gone differently, but alas, history does not suffer a subjunctive mood. hi
            2. The comment was deleted.
          2. 0
            27 May 2015 16: 41
            And the "Duma" which already existed at that time - and what? SELF-SUPPORT is "sovereignty" in Russian.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. xan
          +7
          27 May 2015 15: 41
          Quote: jktu66
          The death of the empire was caused by an internal policy that was too liberal for wartime, the extremely successful "policy of indirect influence" of the German General Staff and the treacherous intrigues of the British Cabinet with their policy of preventing Russia from entering the Balkans, the Middle East and the Black Sea straits.

          Russia is not dill, not pro-Baltic, and not even France, Germany and England. Only the authorities in Russia are to blame for Russia's problems and no one else. Peter 1, Catherine 2, Alexander 1, Alexander 3 and Stalin solved problems without snot. Nicholas 2 could not solve the problem, and his mother the dowager empress warned her slobber son to hold on to Stolypin. Even this will not be enough. One word, or rather two, "Tsarskoye Selo gopher".
          1. +4
            27 May 2015 16: 05
            Nicholas 2 could not solve the problems, and his mother, the Dowager Empress, warned her slobber-son that she needed to hold on to Stolypin. Even this will was not enough.
            Perhaps you are too harsh. Of course, Nicholas 2nd in terms of the rigidity of character and does not come close to the Figures listed by you, but! The growth rates of the Russian economy in 1907-1914 were very high, even without Stolypin, we can only envy the level of wages and freedoms! was at that time significantly higher than in the "euro-democracies" and "euro-empires". The population of the Russian Empire ROSLO! By the way, Putin is now also often blamed for being too soft laughing
        4. 0
          27 May 2015 23: 06
          I advise you to watch the TV series "Wealth", it shows both the disbelief that Japan would dare to attack, and the betrayal of the then "elite" of the Russian Empire, and the struggle of an ordinary Russian man
      2. +1
        27 May 2015 15: 43
        One of the opinions of the church about Tsar Nicholas II as a ruler and a man in World War I ... I advise you to listen
        Part 1
        In the file https://yadi.sk/d/uowbJnTBgZfKW about the Sovereign starting from 03:00 a.m.
        Part 2
        https://yadi.sk/d/iRgzcH1GgZfLV
  2. +4
    27 May 2015 07: 16
    Well started. Let's wait until the controversial moments go: the last orders of the commander, actions of the main forces of the parties, the withdrawal of cruisers by Enquist, the breakthrough of the Emerald, etc.
    We wait. Maybe the author will indicate the sources? There are not a few of them and the discrepancies there are large enough hi
    1. +6
      27 May 2015 09: 09
      Quote: 25ru
      Well started. Let's wait until the controversial moments go

      Yes, then disputes will begin, defending opposing points of view, throwing sources, opinions of authorities and "dilettantes" (and of course a shell "srach", how can it be without it). Let's wait ...
    2. stranik72
      +1
      27 May 2015 20: 12
      On the Internet, there are a lot of things, and even with reference to sources, I was most surprised by the fate of Admiral Nebogatov, who handed over the ships of his squad, was sentenced to death by the court, pardoned by the tsar, ended his life as a simple teacher in a distant province of Russia in the 20s years. But in fact, the level of combat training, and even the tactical of the Japanese Navy in this battle was higher than the Russian. For example, the main training of our gunners was to defeat enemy ships at distances of 10..15 cables, and the Japanese at distances of 20..25, the battle took place just at this distance, and ours mostly missed, and our shells were not very . But this is already known to all.
  3. +4
    27 May 2015 07: 20
    Yes, Nicholas behaved unprecedentedly. By the way, at the imperial court on the eve of the war, with the light hand of the autocrat, the Japanese were not called other than "macaques". We thought that we would throw hats.

    Thank you for the article. It is a pity that the sources are not indicated.
    1. +1
      27 May 2015 09: 10
      Quote: qwert
      By the way, at the imperial court on the eve of the war, with the light hand of the autocrat, the Japanese were not called other than "macaques".

      It seems that in Port Arthur the soldiers also called the Japanese.
  4. +7
    27 May 2015 07: 27
    As always, the Russians, having paid for the invaluable military experience in blood, did not use it themselves. Now it is no secret to anyone that the Japanese fleet was flooded with British and American naval officers who collected and systematized information, the most prominent result of this work was the Dreadnought. The Germans, in turn, used the Russian experience of loading coal in the absence of bases for the actions of their raiders. And now "Emden", the most successful and noble corsair 1 MV, begins its epic with the capture of the Russian steamer "Ryazan". This is probably the cross of the Russians, to consider every war the last.
    1. +5
      27 May 2015 08: 11
      Quote: blizart
      Now it is no secret to anyone that the Japanese fleet was flooded with British and American naval officers who collected and systematized information, the most prominent result of this work was the Dreadnought.

      I am wildly sorry, but the Dreadnought was laid down long before Tsushima, namely in 1904. And in 1903, the Italian shipbuilder Kuniberti drew up a draft of the "ideal battleship" with twelve 12 "guns, 12" main belt armor and a 24-knot course. The Germans, in turn, in their raider operations were based on the experience of the Vladivostok cruiser squadron
      1. +3
        27 May 2015 08: 28
        Quote: Serg65
        I am wildly sorry, but the Dreadnought was laid down long before Tsushima, namely in 1904.

        You are still mistaken. The bookmarking date of this ship is October 02, 1905. But the idea was ripening for a long time and the project, of course, was created earlier than the results of Tsushima.
        1. -15
          27 May 2015 09: 29
          Quote: 25ru
          You are still mistaken. The bookmarking date of this ship is October 02, 1905. But the idea was ripening for a long time and the project, of course, was created earlier than the results of Tsushima.


          Of course, the Tsushima battle is a tragedy of the Russian fleet. For me it’s so different.

          It would be better if the Japanese would sink only one ship from the entire squadron. Then they would not have allowed world tragedy.

          The 2nd Pacific squadron included one cruiser, named "Aurora". He remained intact. He returned to the Baltic. And on October 25, 1917, he fired a fatal shot that plunged Russia into the revolution and the tragedy of adversity.

          Of course, not unambiguously, but still.
          1. +2
            27 May 2015 19: 29
            Quote: Portal
            The 2nd Pacific squadron included one cruiser, named "Aurora". He remained intact. He returned to the Baltic. And on October 25, 1917, he fired a fatal shot that plunged Russia into the revolution and the tragedy of adversity.

            The 1 Pacific squadron included the cruiser Askold ... and what would have changed if, instead of the Aurora, the same shot had been fired by some other surviving Far Eastern cruiser?
            Now, if in 1905 they would have won the war, then maybe there would not have been that very shot in 1917 ...
        2. 0
          27 May 2015 14: 44
          Quote: 25ru
          You are still mistaken. The bookmarking date of this ship is October 02, 1905. But the idea was ripening for a long time and the project, of course, was created earlier than the results of Tsushima.

          If it weren't for the British Dreadnought, the Americans would have launched their Michigans.
          The Yankees themselves, independently of the British and long before Tsushima, based on the results of the annual conference in Newport in the summer of 1903, formulated the concept of an all-big-gun ship: 12 x 12 "(hexagonal) + as much as possible 76-mm as a secondary battery. twists and turns of domestic policy, during which they tried to replace part 12 "by 10" to reduce the displacement and price of the ship (and also fearing that so many 12 "would not fit into the hull). But at the summer conference of 1904, it was again concluded that "combat distances will continue to grow, and only the 305-mm gun meets the necessary requirements for armor penetration."
          And then on the way of the 12 x 12 "ship, Congress stood up like a wall, setting a displacement limit of 16 kt. On the other hand, the concept of onboard towers disappeared - it turned out that they were technically and tactically impractical. As a result, a project of an 8 x 12" ship with a linearly elevated location appeared. towers - the future "Michigan" and "South Carolina".
    2. 0
      27 May 2015 09: 02
      And now "Emden" is the most successful and noble corsair 1 MB
      Please name the source, where "Emden" is listed as the most successful corsair 1 MB? Yes
      November 9, 1914 - from the cruiser landing on the island. Direction (Cocos Islands, Indian Ocean, Colombo-Perth line) of 32 sailors, 15 technicians, 2 junior lieutenants Schmidt and Gisling under the command of Lieutenant Muke (rifles and 4 machine guns). The landing party destroyed the radio station and the cable communications. Not having time to take the landing on board, the cruiser was destroyed by the artillery of the Australian light cruiser Sydney, directed by a radio station. The cruiser sat on the rocks and sank. Of the 314 people who were on the cruiser, 127 were captured, the rest were killed. The landing party of Mücke left on a sailing schooner at sea (later it reached Arabia and returned to Germany).
      1. +4
        27 May 2015 15: 31
        Well, if 23 steamers sunk (without the death of crews), the bombing of Madras, the shooting of the Emerald in the Penang roadstead are not an example of daring and successful actions for you ... And yes, the newest Sydney destroyed it. Then a special medal was cast for this battle, emphasizing once again the originality of this victory
        1. +1
          27 May 2015 15: 44
          For you:
          However, all these figures fade before the results of the second "Wolf" - perhaps the most famous commercial raider in Germany during the First World War. The former Wachtfels steamboat of the Hansa company of Bremen, included in the German fleet in 1916, received strong armament consisting of seven 150-mm guns, four torpedo tubes and 465 min. The raider also had the Friedrichshafen FF-33e seaplane for reconnaissance flights, which later became known as Wolfhen (Wolf Cub). The stock of ammunition and food was enough for fifteen months of the campaign. The ship was converted in such a way that he could change his silhouette with the help of additional match and pipes.

          On November 30, 1916, a raider under the command of Corvette-Captain Karl-August Nerger left Keel on his unprecedented voyage. The gray shadow “Wolf” passed the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans, sending to the bottom of the enemy’s ships. In addition, mines were put up at Cape of Good Hope, Bombay, Colombo, Aden, Singapore, the coast of New Zealand and Australia. "Wolfhen", which turned out to be a very successful and unpretentious aircraft, provided all possible assistance by conducting aerial reconnaissance and attacking enemy ships with bombs. On February 24, 1918, seven days after the Admiral Headquarters sent a notification to the families of the cruiser crew that it was lost at sea, the most successful raider of all time entered the harbor of Kiel, accompanied by the Wolf Cub flying over it. The results achieved by Nerger are truly admirable. The Wolf spent 452 days sailing, having covered about 64000 miles during this time. The raider captured and sank 14 ships during this time, and another 13 became victims of his mines. Another five received heavy damage from the bombings. Thus, the total tonnage of the victims was about 214 tons. The actions of Nerger and his team became a model for raider operations, and the results were never blocked during the First or Second World Wars.
          hi
        2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. avt
      0
      27 May 2015 09: 51
      Quote: blizart
      . The Germans, in turn, used the Russian experience in loading coal in the absence of bases for the actions of their raiders.

      In general, the experience of the squadron of Vladivistok cruisers, which actually ended for them with a "battle of giants with dwarfs", and single raiding has been known since the time of the king of peas.
      Quote: blizart
      Now it is no secret to anyone that the Japanese fleet was flooded with British and American naval officers who collected and systematized information, the most prominent result of this work was the Dreadnought.

      The result was a draw of Jutland, which to this day rivals pull themselves.
  5. +7
    27 May 2015 07: 54
    Alas, cheers-patriotism in 1904. was too much.



    Interesting posters of those times at http://humus.livejournal.com/3449779.html
    1. +7
      27 May 2015 10: 41
      Quote: igordok
      Alas, cheers-patriotism in 1904. was too much.

      In 1939-1941, propaganda also promised that if the Germans suddenly dare to foolishly attack the USSR, the war will only go on in Germany with minimal losses. And the victory was not given as easily as the agitators and ideologists of those times promised.
      And today, many VO commentators are ready to throw Americans' hats in the comments laughing
      A test posters good It’s a pity that it turned out otherwise sad
  6. +7
    27 May 2015 08: 07
    This is, first of all, an example of what hat-making leads to. There were more than one reasons, as always, of course. But some people must wrap around their mustaches.
    1. +2
      27 May 2015 08: 14
      On many posters, the British, Americans and sometimes Chinese are portrayed as enemies (allies of the Japanese).
      1. 0
        27 May 2015 10: 59
        Quote: igordok
        On many posters, the British, Americans and sometimes Chinese are portrayed as enemies (allies of the Japanese).

        Because the British and Americans, and not only them, sponsored the Japanese in 1905. European and American sailors took part in the "battle" of the Japanese squadron against the cruiser "Varyag" and the gunboat "Koreets"
      2. +1
        27 May 2015 14: 52
        Quote: igordok
        On many posters, the British, Americans and sometimes Chinese are portrayed as enemies (allies of the Japanese).

        And who else to portray? The fleet of Japan was created at British shipyards.
        MIKASA - Vickers, Barrow (England)
        ASAHI - J. Brown, Clydebank (England)
        SIKISIMA - Thames Iron Works, Blackwall
        HATSE - Armstrong-Whitworth, Elswick
        FUJI - Thames Iron Works, Blackwall
        YASIMA - Armstrong-Whitworth, Elswick

        Britain is also leading in the construction of BrKR for IJN.
        1. +2
          27 May 2015 16: 29
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Britain is also leading in the construction of BrKR for IJN.


          Well, don’t be so one-sided. And Russian ships were not all Russian-built. There were also built by the same British, Americans, French.
          1. +1
            27 May 2015 17: 12
            Quote: Portal
            Well, don’t be so one-sided. And Russian ships were not all Russian-built. There were also built by the same British, Americans, French.

            There were. But not in such quantities and not with such a distribution across countries.
            6 of 6 EDB IJN - Britain.
            4 out of 6 pre-war IJN BRKRs are Britain again. One is France. One is Germany. Then 2 more Italian "on the occasion" were bought.
            1. +1
              27 May 2015 17: 18
              In fact, the war against Russia with Japanese hands, sometimes using bases (battle at Dogger Bank).

              then when the Japs on the continent began to be squeezed - they simply notified that they would directly fit in as before for the Turks. She therefore stopped, and even under such conditions.
            2. +1
              27 May 2015 17: 23
              The destruction of the Russian state by "international forces" with the help of military methods actually began in the middle of the nineteenth century and not at the beginning of the twentieth century. Even the Decembrists planned to kill the royal family, about the same occult. Then there was a chain of assassinations and assassinations of monarchs by conspirators, and not only in Russia.
              1. +1
                27 May 2015 18: 09
                Very correct formulation of the question.
            3. +4
              27 May 2015 17: 29
              Quote: Alexey RA
              There were. But not in such quantities and not with such a distribution across countries.
              6 of 6 EDB IJN - Britain.
              4 out of 6 pre-war IJN BRKRs are Britain again. One is France. One is Germany. Then 2 more Italian "on the occasion" were bought.


              The difference in quantity is small. Just do not cry, they say if it were not for the Angles they built ships, then ....

              What cheers the patriots would like the Japanese to sail to Tsushima on junks. So what is the honor and glory in the defeat of junks.

              And in Japan, not only the ships were built in the west, but almost all the factories too. At the beginning of the 19th century, the Japanese emperor (analogue of Peter 1) carried out the Meiju reformation, it seems. And for one generation, Japan from a bow and arrow came to steam boilers and armadillos.

              And already in WW2, Japan itself built its ships.
              1. 0
                27 May 2015 17: 57
                In 2MB and not in 1MB, and especially not in Russian-Japanese ...

                before Peter the 1st, however, the Ural industry was bully
              2. +1
                27 May 2015 18: 19
                Quote: Portal

                The difference in quantity is small. Just do not cry, they say if it were not for the Angles they built ships, then ....

                The difference in the amount of what?
                100% IJN EDB built in Britain. 67% of BrKR - in the same place.
                Do you want to compare with two "imported" EBR RIF ("Retvizan" and "Tsesarevich")?

                Britain systematically and purposefully pumped up a third world country, making it a regional leader and creating a "fighting hamster" out of it.
                Only now the hamster turned violent. smile
  7. +3
    27 May 2015 08: 20
    The article is good, thanks to the author! If, on the eve of the war, the basis of the Pacific squadron was transferred from Port Arthur to Vladivostok, then maybe Tsushima would not have happened - Admiral Stark, commander of the squadron, and Admiral Makarov also pointed out this mistake. Japan at that time was a rather closed country for Europeans, and maybe that’s why Kuropatkin reacted to the prospect of a war with her like that, for which our great-grandfathers paid their lives. The squadron of cruisers from Vladivostok interrupted the supply of the siege army as much as it could, if the fleet was full-fledged, its efficiency was much higher than it turned out
    1. +1
      27 May 2015 08: 42
      Quote: Gray 43
      If, on the eve of the war, the basis of the Pacific squadron was transferred from Port Arthur to Vladivostok, then maybe Tsushima would not have happened - Admiral Stark, commander of the squadron, and Admiral Makarov also pointed out this mistake.

      Many people have written about this. Including Rozhestvensky, occupying the post of NSMS. I won't give you a source for sure, but there was such an option: the best fast battleships "Tsesarevich" and "Retvizan" - to Vladivostok, reinforce them with fast battleships-raiders "Victory" and "Peresvet", which will give combat stability to the armored cruisers of the Vladivostok detachment. Convert the best armored cruiser "Bayan", the best scout "Novik", the best armored "six-thousanders" "Askold", "Varyag", "Bogatyr" into one high-speed formation. Transfer all destroyers and auxiliary cruisers.
      Leave in Arthur: all three battleships of the "Petropavlovsk" type, armored "goddesses", canal boats and destroyers, obsolete ships as a guardhouse.
      1. 0
        27 May 2015 09: 41
        Source: On "Eagle" in Tsushima. Author Krylov. This is the most mysterious war in our immediate history. A phrase from Makarov's statement, shortly before his death, is enough: The Ring (around us?) Is shrinking. And this despite the obvious sabotage of his actions both in Arthur and St. Petersburg and in the headquarters of the fleet ((GMS). Only these events are accepted to be calculated according to the old calendar. And in general, it seems that the current historical period is closer to the beginning of the last century, and not to 14 But this is just my personal opinion. hi
        1. +1
          27 May 2015 10: 40
          The Russo-Japanese War is generally a collection of military and historical paradoxes. Perhaps the most concentrated. No wonder alternativeists love her so much.
        2. xan
          +3
          27 May 2015 16: 14
          Quote: ymNIK1970
          A phrase from Makarov’s statement, just before death, is enough: The ring (around us?) Is compressed. And this with the obvious sabotage of his actions in Arthur and St. Petersburg and in the headquarters of the fleet ((GMS)

          A vivid example when there is no sensible supreme power. Shoot a couple of barons in the naval and land headquarters because of sabotage and the desire to work not for the common cause, but for personal glory, and everything would spin many times faster and more intelligently.
          Anyone who knows the history of Russian-Japanese and WWI cannot but pay attention to the systemic crisis of the higher military bureaucracy of Tsarist Russia, and indeed of the entire state power. Lenin was right when he remarked that "everything is rotten from top to bottom." Even the famous Brusilov did not dare to squeeze the tsar's creature and suffered senseless losses. They needed executions, plantings and confiscations without regard to personalities, as in France in WWI, but the tsar was explained how it should be.
          1. +1
            27 May 2015 17: 37
            Yes, listen to Lenin, so it's better to immediately raise your legs to the top. According to his recipes, this is how we now need to "bring down the Putin regime," to the delight of the world Jewocracy.
          2. 0
            27 May 2015 18: 24
            yeah. don’t recall who our fleet chief was? who built the Kshesinsky mansion? to shoot the tsar’s brothers ... anyone but not Nikolashka.
        3. 0
          27 May 2015 18: 17
          Clarification! The book "On the Eagle" in Tsushima was written not by Krylov, but by Kostenko, at that time - a ship engineer of an battleship, later - a shipbuilder.
    2. +9
      27 May 2015 09: 03
      Quote: Gray 43
      The article is good, thanks to the author!

      The article is pretty standard (I’m not saying - mediocre), a simple statement of known facts. But frankly, so many copies were broken about this, so many disputes and various hypotheses have been put forward since the Tsushima defeat, that it is extremely difficult to offer something fresh.
      Thanks to the author for reminding readers of the anniversary of the Battle of Tsushima about our history, which unfortunately many began to forget. These tragic moments were pushed back by more epic historical events. But heroism and courage is always present in any war. This can not be forgotten.
      I would recommend to the author for a change, in the following publications on this topic, add rare photos of our ships, crews (in the parking lots, before and after the battle, damage, squadron movement pattern), there are quite rare photos that are not known to the general public (although I maybe I get ahead of myself and the author took everything into account, then I ask you sorry) ...
      And here is a photograph of the battle itself, unfortunately one taken from a Japanese ship ...
      1. 0
        27 May 2015 09: 43
        I agree with you. Even more interesting would be the memories of the Japanese about Tsushima. In my opinion, the battle was lost due to the lower level of combat training. Simply put, they didn’t know how to shoot. Just shells did not hit the target.
        1. 0
          27 May 2015 10: 28
          And in the materiel there was definitely a lag.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. 0
          27 May 2015 10: 37
          In my opinion, the battle was lost due to the lower level of combat training. Simply put, they didn’t know how to shoot. Just shells did not hit the target. [/ Quote]
          And where could the 2nd squadron develop this training? In the Baltic, when was the last time the war was?
          The most prepared fleet was on the Black Sea - but who would release it?
          The commandants of the 2nd squadron, many of whom were called up on the eve of the reserve, had no experience of ocean firing, it was one thing to fire a projectile at a target, and another to maneuver an enemy ship for a dozen kilometers. The Japanese had plenty of sightseeing in Port Arthur ships - they got practical experience. And one more thing: as it turned out later: when aiming, our rangefinders did not take into account the rotation of the earth-projectile flying kilometers, shifted by a certain angle - here you have a low number of hits.
          1. +2
            27 May 2015 11: 28
            Quote: semirek
            And where could the 2nd squadron develop this training? In the Baltic, when was the last time the war was?


            Combat training in the navy is the main type of training in peacetime. Do not confuse with combat experience. The problem is that training firing was carried out formally.
            1. +2
              27 May 2015 16: 08
              Quote: Silhouette
              The problem is that training firing was carried out formally.


              Here are some ridiculous reasons put forward. They say the Russian fleet did not fight before that and therefore the commandos were not able to shoot.

              As if the Japanese had fought against the English, German or American fleets for 50 years without a break.

              Correctly say - Nail is combat training. Military action is the result of combat training.
          2. +3
            27 May 2015 17: 44
            Even hitting 1 to 2 against the opponent would not be so sour. It doesn't get any worse, though. The result is completely different. Japanese ships in mass practically did not receive significant damage, which is taken out of the battle, with a couple of exceptions. so it is impossible to "smear". And the battle distances are not comparable with the same Jutland in WW1 - they were much shorter. The same shooting of the Varyag (where did they practice it?) Was an order of magnitude more effective - the Japanese cruisers alternately left the battle. do not dishonor the Russian gunners in vain. Here something else is covered: 1) stupid setting "for a breakthrough" 2) Brink fuses.
            1. -2
              27 May 2015 17: 49
              Brink Blank, Blank Brink ... bully
        4. 0
          27 May 2015 15: 52
          for Silhouette:
          There are such memoirs. And translated into
          Russian (from English, however, so the translation
          double). Google, maybe find.
          The Japanese were unpleasantly struck that Russian officers
          fleet surrendering to the Japanese destroyers
          without even trying to help and evacuate your
          wounded sailors dying on scattered half-sunken ships.
          (So ​​the riot on the battleship Potemkin did not arise from scratch).
        5. 0
          27 May 2015 17: 03
          Quote: Silhouette
          Even more interesting would be the memories of the Japanese about Tsushima.

          They are - "Description of military operations at sea in 37-38. Meiji." I read this work. It is written rather dry, officially and biased. Somewhere I came across information that there are other sources, but they have not yet been translated.

          Quote: Silhouette
          In my opinion, the battle was lost due to the lower level of combat training. Simply put, they didn’t know how to shoot. Just shells did not hit the target.

          My opinion is that this was a whole complex of problems and shortcomings ... Underestimation of the enemy, lack of command, poor preparation of military personnel, different types of ships, low speed, inability to maneuver, non-bursting shells due to wet pyroxylin ... etc . All this together led to the defeat and death of the squadron. This was essentially predetermined, and no heroism under any circumstances could already help.
          Well, and assumptions (which we all love so much), what could be - if ... Of course they are good ... But only for an alternative story. But in the present story, unfortunately, there is no subjunctive mood.
          1. 0
            27 May 2015 18: 20
            By the time of Tsushima, there had been no underestimation of the enemy for a long time. Rather, it was my own underestimation. And I disagree about poor preparation. It’s like you have to be unprepared to “fight” like that. In your opinion, we did not have naval officers, but children put up against the "naval ninja". For the rest, there is nothing to object. But! The Russian fleet has won more than once in history, and in much worse hands. Rather, the moral unwillingness to win was evident. Plus, the humiliating drove the "samotopes" perfectly speaks of the attitude of the entire military elite of the empire to the navy of that time. This is some kind of "programming", in modern terms. In the style of "Guys! Our tsar was shown a fig! Let's die to the last!" (m / f about Emelya was like that). The generals and officers did not have the thirst for blood of the enemy, but the samurai did.
            1. 0
              27 May 2015 19: 01
              Quote: andrew42
              And I disagree about poor preparation. It’s like you have to be unprepared to “fight” like that.

              Here I did not quite understand ... The complete defeat of the squadron, almost all armored ships were sunk (if Nebogatov had not surrendered, they would have sunk too). And the loss of the enemy - 3 (three) destroyers! Isn't that an indicator?
              The enemy was a cut above militarily, the crews were trained, cooperation was established, they had combat experience (they fought for more than a year) and our non-fired sailors (also with a high percentage of fines and recruits). I think the difference is significant.
              Although, if you meant personal courage and mass heroism, then I agree.

              Underestimation of the enemy by the time of Tsushima had long been gone.

              And here you are in vain ... The sailors from the 2nd squadron understood this, including Christmas. But in St. Petersburg they thought differently. Otherwise, they would have returned the squadron from Madagascar, after the death of the 1st ...
    3. +2
      27 May 2015 14: 59
      Quote: Gray 43
      If, on the eve of the war, the basis of the Pacific squadron was transferred from Port Arthur to Vladivostok, then maybe Tsushima would not have happened - Admiral Stark, commander of the squadron, and Admiral Makarov also pointed out this mistake.

      Ahem ... and is it nothing that Vladivostok hardly provided for the basing of three BrKR and one BpKR?

      And most importantly - 1 TOE in Vladik turned out to be on the periphery of the theater of war and simply turned off from the war. What should she do? Withdraw the EDB in support of the Kyrgyz Republic to interrupt communications between Japan and Korea? This means taking the battle away from your base and close to Japanese bases.
      1. 0
        27 May 2015 17: 47
        I agree. In fact, the battleships in Vladik had nothing to do, for It’s inappropriate.
  8. +5
    27 May 2015 08: 36
    Pikul "Cruiser" - I recommend, who has not read
    1. +4
      27 May 2015 09: 00
      Quote: Almatinets
      Pikul "Cruiser" - I recommend,

      I will add: V. Pikul "Three ages of Okini-san"; G. Tsyvinsky "Fifty Years in the Russian Imperial Navy"; V. Tsibulko "Unread Pages of Tsushima"; V.Kostenko "On the" Eagle "in Tsushima".
      Interested enough to start.
      1. AAV
        0
        27 May 2015 15: 21
        Thanks for the links to the literature. Pikul read the listed novels, but there are no other books.
        If we compare the assessment of Admiral Rozhdestvensky in Pikul's novels and in Tsushima by Novikov-Priboy, then Pikul's are more positive.
        By the way, V. Pikul also has novels "Wealth" and "Hard labor". They are also dedicated to the Russo-Japanese War, only on land. I understand that it’s not quite the topic, but I just remembered.

        I hope for an interesting continuation of the series of articles.
        1. +2
          27 May 2015 18: 05
          Quote: AAV
          By the way, V. Pikul also has the novels "Wealth" and "Hard labor". They are also dedicated to the Russo-Japanese War, only on land.

          Well, "Katorga" is more like Sakhalin everyday life during the war with a slight emphasis on the capture of the island by the Japanese. But the imagery of the story, combined with the talent of the author, captures from the first page to the last. Especially about the mediocrity and venality of some government officials.
    2. +2
      27 May 2015 09: 03
      There is still "Three ages of Okini-san" An interesting book, but many inconsistencies with the primary sources, although for fiction it is forgivable.
      But in essence: shortly before the war, naval officials refused to change the order of storage of ammunition and their shelf life, so most of the shells did not explode. Japanese ships got so many holes that these shells exploded - damage to most ships would be fatal. I agree with blizart, Russians consider every war the last.
      1. +8
        27 May 2015 09: 14
        Port Arthur A.N. Stepanov (novel). In childhood, was a favorite book.
        1. +2
          27 May 2015 12: 55
          The most important book, Novikov-Priboy A.S. Tsushima
        2. +1
          27 May 2015 17: 14
          I also swallowed Stepanov's novel when I was 10. Pikul is of course newer, but he did not stand next to Stepanov. Although Pikul is scrupulous to the details, novels are equally important: heroes, historical outline, individual facts, but there is no analytical generalization, even "class contradictions" are smeared out, unlike Stepanov. Everything about Pikul is so tragic and touchingly God-fearing.
  9. +1
    27 May 2015 09: 35
    We are not lucky with the admirals, or rather with the best. Admirals Nakhimov, Kornilov and Istomin died in Sevastopol, Makarov in Port Arthur. There’s some kind of trouble.
    1. +1
      27 May 2015 09: 55
      and Ushakov, the same Makarov? Sea Suvorovs!
    2. +3
      27 May 2015 18: 09
      Quote: Severomor
      We are not lucky with the admirals, or rather with the best. Admirals Nakhimov, Kornilov and Istomin died in Sevastopol, Makarov in Port Arthur. There’s some kind of trouble.

      Everything is natural: whoever didn’t run from the enemy died at a military post. Ushakov (like Suvorov) is a pleasant exception, as their palace intrigues have finished off.
  10. +2
    27 May 2015 09: 36
    When I read Noviky-Priboy about Tsushima - for several days I was impressed by these events, but my opinion is this: we are looking for the culprits of the defeat of the Far East in the leadership of the country at that time, namely Nicholas, but at the same time we forget how many years the Russian army has not How many years did the Russian fleet not leave ports for sea battles? Do you think that the army and the navy gained combat experience during the years of military "downtime"? Of course not. For some reason we all respect Alexander III, as a peacemaker, for his rule Russia has never fought - this is certainly good, but this is not the reason for our failures in the Russo-Japanese war, the lack of combat experience in the active army. Nicholas was heavily dependent on Western Europe, both in terms of finances, and in new weapons , this said its word in the continuation of the war in the east, I am sure that with the continuation of the war - Russia in a year returned all losses and gained new ones, but we have something.
    As for the 2nd squadron - someone lobbied for sending it east, for what purpose? - to frighten the Japanese? I’m sure - everywhere there was a degree of sabotage, the British, whose cherished goal was to weaken Russia, which they managed to to some extent.
    1. +1
      27 May 2015 09: 52
      But my opinion is this: we are looking for the culprits of the defeat of the Far East in the leadership of the country of that time, namely Nicholas, but at the same time we forget how many years the Russian army did not take up arms?


      Your opinion is based on ignorance of military history. I dare to assure you that the Russian army fought constantly. Not in Europe, so in Asia. The last use of the fleet was to suppress riots in China 3 years before Tsushima.
      1. 0
        27 May 2015 10: 18
        Quote: Silhouette
        But my opinion is this: we are looking for the culprits of the defeat of the Far East in the leadership of the country of that time, namely Nicholas, but at the same time we forget how many years the Russian army did not take up arms?


        Your opinion is based on ignorance of military history. I dare to assure you that the Russian army fought constantly. Not in Europe, so in Asia. The last use of the fleet was to suppress riots in China 3 years before Tsushima.

        Dear! If you think my opinion is wrong --- please argue your arguments, indicating battles on land, indicating armies, corps, and battles at sea, indicating battleships and cruisers (battle of cannon boats and individual regiments, when suppressing various types of "boxing" uprisings, please do not enroll here) in the era of Alexander III. Otherwise, I will consider you ignorant of military history.
        1. +5
          27 May 2015 10: 45
          Well, the gunboat No.Koreets No. will suit you, as an answer, oh great connoisseur? She crushed the Chinese artforts during the liquidation of the rebellion No. Boxers No. in 1901. In alliance with the Japanese. hi True, under Nicholas Holy Blood. But the experience was clearly, and the Yamato sons were seen in battle, even then as allies.
          About the peacekeeper Alexander -In the reign, 114 new warships were launched, including 17 armadillos and 10 armored cruisers; the Russian fleet took third place in the world after England and France in a number of world fleets - the total displacement of the Russian fleet reached 3 thousand tons.
          Further As a result, under Alexander III, the territory of the Russian Empire increased by another 430 thousand square meters. km. (it's like, in your opinion, peacefully happened, huh) hi
          The numbers of the regiments are things, of course, but square kilometers mean the same thing.
          1. -4
            27 May 2015 12: 25
            Quote: tanit
            Well, the gunboat No.Koreets No. will suit you, as an answer, oh great connoisseur? She crushed the Chinese artforts during the liquidation of the rebellion No. Boxers No. in 1901. In alliance with the Japanese. hi True, under Nicholas Holy Blood. But the experience was clearly, and the Yamato sons were seen in battle, even then as allies.
            About the peacekeeper Alexander -In the reign, 114 new warships were launched, including 17 armadillos and 10 armored cruisers; the Russian fleet took third place in the world after England and France in a number of world fleets - the total displacement of the Russian fleet reached 3 thousand tons.
            Further As a result, under Alexander III, the territory of the Russian Empire increased by another 430 thousand square meters. km. (it's like, in your opinion, peacefully happened, huh) hi
            The numbers of the regiments are things, of course, but square kilometers mean the same thing.

            The letter A tells you, but you do not even answer B, but immediately I.
            1. +1
              27 May 2015 14: 59
              Quote: semirek
              The letter A tells you, but you do not even answer B, but immediately I.

              About how, and what, the order of letters in the alphabet speaks of their significance? Surprised. hi
              Well, I mean, that Alexander 3 conquered and expanded. Regiment numbers? Well, if you have a desire, find it. Believe me, there are regimental numbers and even company numbers (and, as a rule, it was the company groups that these 430 thousand territories were taken under the auspices of the crown of the Russian Empire.
              Sincerely. hi
              1. -1
                27 May 2015 16: 08
                Quote: tanit
                Quote: semirek
                The letter A tells you, but you do not even answer B, but immediately I.

                About how, and what, the order of letters in the alphabet speaks of their significance? Surprised. hi
                Well, I mean, that Alexander 3 conquered and expanded. Regiment numbers? Well, if you have a desire, find it. Believe me, there are regimental numbers and even company numbers (and, as a rule, it was the company groups that these 430 thousand territories were taken under the auspices of the crown of the Russian Empire.
                Sincerely. hi

                Why do you turn my question upside down for the second time? I repeat: I suggested indicating what large-scale battles on land and at sea took place during the reign of Alexander the Third - as a result, I did not read anything intelligible, moreover, here are the numbers of regiments and companies ? Indicate where I mentioned this? There was a specific question, but there was no clear answer to it, why wag from side to side?
                1. +1
                  27 May 2015 17: 09
                  Quote: semirek
                  Quote: tanit
                  Quote: semirek
                  The letter A tells you, but you do not even answer B, but immediately I.

                  About how, and what, the order of letters in the alphabet speaks of their significance? Surprised. hi
                  Well, I mean, that Alexander 3 conquered and expanded. Regiment numbers? Well, if you have a desire, find it. Believe me, there are regimental numbers and even company numbers (and, as a rule, it was the company groups that these 430 thousand territories were taken under the auspices of the crown of the Russian Empire.
                  Sincerely. hi

                  Why do you turn my question upside down for the second time? I repeat: I suggested indicating what large-scale battles on land and at sea took place during the reign of Alexander the Third - as a result, I did not read anything intelligible, moreover, here are the numbers of regiments and companies ? Indicate where I mentioned this? There was a specific question, but there was no clear answer to it, why wag from side to side?

                  430 square kilometers, do you think this is not large-scale? hi
        2. +2
          27 May 2015 11: 21
          Quote: semirek
          Dear, if you think my opinion is wrong-


          Kind! Self-education is the main method of development. Good luck!
          1. -4
            27 May 2015 12: 16
            Quote: Silhouette
            Quote: semirek
            Dear, if you think my opinion is wrong-


            Kind! Self-education is the main method of development. Good luck!

            How dashingly have you stepped aside from the question asked by me, as I understand it, you are now engaged in self-education, to make up gaps in historical knowledge, to somehow grow above yourself? Success!
    2. +1
      27 May 2015 13: 13
      but isn’t this the reason for our failures in the Russo-Japanese war,
      excellent training and actions of the middle and lower command level with the mediocrity and mediocrity of the top military leadership, the lack of a strategy and plan of war can also be added to the causes of failure. By the way, many prominent commanders 1mv turned out from the regiments and divisional commanders
    3. xan
      0
      27 May 2015 16: 23
      Quote: semirek
      I am sure - everywhere there was to one degree or another sabotage, the British, whose cherished goal was to weaken Russia, which they managed to some extent.

      In-in, dill is to blame for the Russians, and Russia is England.
      Why does Russia need such power that can be reeled from abroad? Why didn’t Peter and Stalin reel?
      1. 0
        27 May 2015 16: 40
        Quote: xan
        Why does Russia need such power that can be reeled from abroad? Why didn’t Peter and Stalin reel?

        Ohhh, Peter the Great ...
        Well. Now someone thread will explain in a popular way that his
        1.changed
        2. St. Petersburg was not built by him.
        3. The Northern War lost.
        4. there has been access to all seas since the time of Lemuria.
        laughing
        1. -1
          27 May 2015 16: 53
          The exit with this "professional rear-wheel drive" with Menshikov and Co, appeared only in a Swedish puddle, the neck of which until 1857 was in Danish hands (see. Sunda duty). wassat
          he wasn’t replaced by him and he was - he collected all the guano with Europe’s lousy then, but with Russian paisas ...
          1. +1
            27 May 2015 17: 05
            Quote: Scraptor
            The exit with this "professional rear-wheel drive" with Menshikov and Co, appeared only in a Swedish puddle, the neck of which until 1857 was in Danish hands (see. Sunda duty). wassat
            he wasn’t replaced by him and he was - he collected all the guano with Europe’s lousy then, but with Russian paisas ...

            And what happened to Him, eh? Enlighten. hi
            1. -3
              27 May 2015 17: 07
              Take and enlighten the Russian Kingdom Map ... bully
              1. +1
                27 May 2015 17: 17
                Quote: Scraptor
                Take and enlighten the Russian Kingdom Map ... bully

                Reply
                quote
                Report Site Violation

                AND? What is enlightenment? Or do you mean a map of Tartaria? I looked (and you probably no, in different years - a different map, the latter within the framework of the current CHINA, but still a map of Tartaria laughing ), enlightened, your nonsense is not interesting. hi
                1. -2
                  27 May 2015 17: 28
                  It is very difficult to discern the territorial acquisitions of Petrundel against the background of the map of the Kingdom of the Russian times of the 1680s ...
                  And under him a lot of people left - this was the goal of the "reforms".

                  You have nonsense. And you are not interested either - the case is described in sufficient detail in medical and criminal practice. bully
      2. +2
        27 May 2015 17: 56
        The tough confrontation between Britain and Russia - since 1856 in fact, but really since the reign of Paul I. And there is nothing to close your eyes and plug your ears - this will make the strongest hostile empire of bankers weaker and will not disappear. The fact that Britain and the United States were behind Japan - it is absolutely necessary to be an idealist in order not to be aware. And about the same incident at Dogger Banks: the destroyer attack was, and there was a strike. It is unclear why trample your version in a rezunovsky way. Whose? - Another question. Most likely British, possibly with Japanese crews, in whole or in part. By the way, they shot back then, taking into account the night and bustle, quite decently. At least torpedoes did not come aboard. This is by the way that some here write about the inability to shoot.
        1. 0
          27 May 2015 18: 03
          By the way, the author of the article adheres to the "English version" of what happened at the Dogger Bank. wink

          is there any positive article about Tsarist Russia on the site?
      3. Alf
        +1
        27 May 2015 19: 37
        Quote: xan
        Why didn’t Peter and Stalin reel?

        We didn’t have time before the shutter clicked.
  11. +4
    27 May 2015 10: 31
    Eternal memory to Russian sailors. I'll go to Nikolsky, put a candle.
  12. +3
    27 May 2015 10: 36
    they did not find Makarov’s replacement until the end of the war, which was yet another evidence of the general degradation of the Russian Empire and, in particular, the rottenness and weakness of the military leadership.


    That is, the construction in eight years (1909-1917 years) of 11-dreadnought and super-dreadnought is evidence degradation Russian Empire? Then let the author find a definition for a country that in the decades to come has not built a single similar ship, losing and built earlier .....
    1. +2
      27 May 2015 13: 17
      That is, the construction in eight years (1909-1917) of 11 dreadnoughts and superdreadnaughts is evidence of the degradation of the Russian Empire? Then let the author find a definition for a country that in the decades to come has not built a single similar ship, losing and built earlier .....
      Allegations of the "rottenness and weakness" of tsarist Russia greatly spoiled my impression of the article
    2. +1
      27 May 2015 15: 08
      Quote: Aleksander
      That is, the construction in eight years (1909-1917) of 11 dreadnoughts and superdreadnaughts is evidence of the degradation of the Russian Empire?

      7 dreadnought. First generation. Which at the time of entry into the fleet were inferior to existing ships of other countries.
      And the construction of Izmailov is generally a song. British guns, German turret parts. As a result, the hulls were lowered, but there was no filling.

      And most importantly, the presence or absence of these LCs did not affect anything at all. The main enemy of the GZF was Home Fleet, and all important targets in the Baltic were covered by BO. At the World Cup by 1915, "Goeben" was afraid to fight even with three EBRs.
      Quote: Aleksander
      Then let the author find a definition for a country that in the decades to come has not built a single similar ship, losing and built earlier .....

      Right. Because this country really appreciated the future war. And I understood that the main thing in it was not status naval toys, but the normal equipment of the army and the Air Force. The fate of the USSR was decided on land and in the air. And the best anti-ship tool were tanks on the berths of bases and aircraft at the surrounding airfields.
      1. +3
        27 May 2015 15: 56
        Quote: Alexey RA
        7 dreadnought. First generation. Which at the time of entry into the fleet were inferior to existing ships of other countries.

        Tell us, in all chilling details, in what place were Sevastopoli surpassed by "Courbet", "Colossus", "Florida", "Dante Alighieri"?
        Quote: Alexey RA
        And the construction of Izmailov is generally a song. British guns, German turret parts. As a result, the hulls were lowered, but there was no filling.

        The guns were actually their own — they simply turned to England because of the urgency of the order. Which, by the way, did not have time, either.
        By the way, be it said, the performance characteristics of the domestic guns of the "Englishwoman" did not match.
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Right. Because this country really appreciated the future war. And I understood that the main thing in it was not status naval toys, but the normal equipment of the army and air force

        They killed, stabbed and buried. Read about the program of the large fleet of the USSR, remember which and how many ships we laid before the war.
        They became VERY WANTED the ocean fleet at the level of the first sea powers and strove to build it.
        1. -1
          27 May 2015 17: 10
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Tell us, in all chilling details, in what place were Sevastopoli surpassed by "Courbet", "Colossus", "Florida", "Dante Alighieri"?

          You phrase "already available ships of other countries"see? At the end of 1914, and it was then that the BF took the first" sevas ", other countries already had" könig "," iron duke "," orion "," New York ", etc. And on the way - "queens" and "eras".
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The guns were actually their own — they simply turned to England because of the urgency of the order. Which, by the way, did not have time, either.
          By the way, be it said, the performance characteristics of the domestic guns of the "Englishwoman" did not match.

          Britain by October 1917 handed over 10 trunks. Our industry is zero.
          In 1922, 8 ready-made Vickers cannons and 7 unfinished NEO guns were stored at the NEO, 4 of which accounted for 60%.

          By the way, even 130/55 were partially Vickers.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          They killed, stabbed and buried. Read about the program of the large fleet of the USSR, remember which and how many ships we laid before the war.
          They became VERY WANTED the ocean fleet at the level of the first sea powers and strove to build it.

          You still want to tell me about pr. 23 and pr. 69 / 69I. Taki is not necessary. smile
          A large fleet was built in the USSR insofar as.
          The construction of project 23 is especially indicative. For example, KhTGZ ordered to make 1940 GTZA by April 3 - and KhTGZ declined to conclude a contract. Plant 189 for 2 years delayed the creation of an experimental boiler. One of the LCs was dismantled on a slipway, and EM was put in place of it. Sanctions? But no.
          In 1940, the unprecedented happened in general - the fleet and the shipbuilding industry, in a single rush, proposed abandoning the construction of the 5th LC and slowing down the construction of those already laid down. And that is characteristic, the Central Committee and SNK supported them:
          new bookmarks battleships and heavy cruisers do not produce, focus on the battleship Soviet Russia, ensuring in 1941 the advancement of its technical readiness by 12%.

          The situation with armor is especially indicative: the NKSP is crying about a wild shortage of any armor, and at the same time, the Izhora and Mariupol plant ship tank armor in volumes comparable to the requirements of the NKSP.
          1. +2
            27 May 2015 18: 11
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Do you see the phrase "existing ships of other countries"?

            It is ambiguous:
            Quote: Alexey RA
            7 dreadnought. First generation. Which at the time of entry into the fleet were inferior to existing ships of other countries.

            it reads as if it meant the first generation dreadnoughts available in the ranks of other countries.
            However, I'm sorry, I got excited here. Which, however, does not negate the fact that the development of the fleet at our place was at the level of France, which at that time was still considered a first-class naval power.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Britain by October 1917 handed over 10 trunks. Our industry is zero.

            This is not true. Russian industry did make one gun, ten more were almost ready (there were only overlapping breech rings and locks). But NEO with the beginning of the WWII was overwhelmed with orders, so the contract for the production of guns was transferred to the British. Which successfully failed him.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            You still want to tell me about pr. 23 and pr. 69 / 69I. Taki is not necessary. smile
            A large fleet was built in the USSR insofar as.

            I understand that the owl is beautiful and there is a globe, but this is not a reason to pull it there.
            Before the war we laid down 4 battleships of Project 23, 2 TKR of Project 69, 7 cruisers of Project 68, not counting the completed cruisers of Project 26 bis and Tallinn.
            The final version of the “Ten-Year Navy Ship Construction Plan” was to have by 1946: 15 project 23 battleships (Soviet Union type), 15 project 69 heavy cruisers (Kronstadt type), 28 light cruisers (26 bis and 68 projects) , 36 destroyer leaders, 144 destroyer squadrons (Projects 7, 7-U, 30 and 35), 336 submarines, 96 patrol ships, 115 submarine hunters, 204 minesweepers, 28 minesweepers and 14 network loaders, 6 monitors and gunboats , 348 torpedo boats. If this is not an ocean fleet, then I am the Pope
            At the same time, the initiator of its construction was the ITT and no one else.
            And "insofar as" it turned out not because they did not want to build a large fleet, but because they really wanted to, but so far it did not work out - the USSR lacked too much for this.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            In 1940, the unprecedented happened in general - the fleet and the shipbuilding industry, in a single rush, proposed abandoning the construction of the 5th LC and slowing down the construction of those already laid down. And that is characteristic, the Central Committee and SNK supported them:

            Now remember the DATE of this quote - October 19, 1940. Doesn’t resemble anything? Just a few months ago, France surrendered, and Germany - that’s bad luck! For some reason, it does not demobilize the army, and that's it :)))
            In other words, they started talking about curtailing the ten-year program only when the war was already knocking on the door.
            1. -1
              27 May 2015 18: 40
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Which, however, does not negate the fact that the development of the fleet at our place was at the level of France, which at that time was still considered a first-class sea power.

              Ahem ... well, when compared with France - yes. You can also compare with Italy. smile
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              The final version of the “Ten-Year Navy Ship Construction Plan” was to have by 1946: 15 project 23 battleships (Soviet Union type), 15 project 69 heavy cruisers (Kronstadt type), 28 light cruisers (26 bis and 68 projects) , 36 destroyer leaders, 144 destroyer squadrons (Projects 7, 7-U, 30 and 35), 336 submarines, 96 patrol ships, 115 submarine hunters, 204 minesweepers, 28 minesweepers and 14 network loaders, 6 monitors and gunboats , 348 torpedo boats. If this is not an ocean fleet, then I am the Pope

              Hehe hehe ... so it plan 1939 year. Which, according to the old Soviet habit, was immediately adjusted for the timing.
              In accordance with the "Order-Plan for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair for 9" approved by the Government on January 1940, 1940. it was planned to bring the technical readiness of the battleships under construction by January 1, 1941 to the following values: the Soviet Union - 31,6%, Soviet Ukraine - 23,7%, Soviet Belarus - 6,2%, the second ship laid down in the factory in 1940 No. 402 - 1,5%. The delivery of the first two ships was planned for 1943, and the other two - for 1944. However, already on January 28 the plan was adjusted with a decrease in the availability of the first two ships to 23,4% and 19,8%, respectively (launch - October 1941 ) and the postponement of the delivery date of the ships of plant No. 402 to 1945.

              And then - and in total.
              The government decree on the military shipbuilding plan for 1941 was held on October 19, 1940. It, in particular, obligated: new bookmarks of battleships and heavy cruisers do not produce, focus on the battleship Soviet Russia, ensuring in 1941 the advancement of its technical readiness by 12%. The deadlines for launching the battleships were the Soviet Union and Soviet Ukraine - June 1943, and Soviet Russia - the third quarter of 1943. The delivery of all three ships was postponed until 1945.

              From such garbage, little ones. The large fleet was drying up almost before our eyes. And with impunity.
            2. -2
              27 May 2015 18: 41
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Now remember the DATE of this quote - October 19, 1940. Doesn’t resemble anything? Just a few months ago, France surrendered, and Germany - that’s bad luck! For some reason, it does not demobilize the army, and that's it :)))
              In other words, they started talking about curtailing the ten-year program only when the war was already knocking on the door.

              And what happened in January 1940, when the deadlines for the delivery of two LCs moved as far back as 1945? wink
              And you yourself said that the naval programs were cut as soon as the smell of war. This is precisely what I said: in the USSR, priority was given to the army and the Air Force. Stalin really wanted the ocean fleet. But he pushed its construction to the very bottom right there, as soon as instead of the next standing in Europe a-la PMV with a neutral USSR, a picture of a possible USSR-Reich war was drawn.

              The Stalinist USSR could only afford to play boats while everything was calm in Europe or a strange war was going on. As soon as the real war smelled, the boats immediately began to cut back in every way. But the rest of the plans were only raised.
              1. +2
                27 May 2015 20: 38
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Ahem ... well, when compared with France - yes.

                And now let's recall that of the five largest industrial economies in the world, France occupied the fourth place, and the Russian Empire the fifth :)))
                But the funny thing is that the Americans are not far from us. Their Wyomings and Texas were scary - on paper. In real life ... Yes, and Iron Duke with their narrow 305-mm strips of armor belts leaving the water department ...
                In general, we know very well the flaws of our battleships, because they are ours. But the disadvantages of imported ones are relatively bad, because in the West no one is inclined to sprinkle ashes on their heads, a cry for technical shortcomings of their native ships.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                And what happened in January 1940, when the deadlines for the delivery of two LCs moved as far back as 1945?

                We determined that the percentage of readiness of both battleships as of January 1940 is very far from the planned :)))
                Quote: Alexey RA
                And you yourself said that the naval programs were cut as soon as the smell of war. This is precisely what I said: in the USSR, priority was given to the army and the Air Force. Stalin really wanted the ocean fleet. But he pushed its construction to the very bottom right there, as soon as instead of the next standing in Europe a-la PMV with a neutral USSR, a picture of a possible USSR-Reich war was drawn.

                He asked you - why are you torturing an unfortunate owl again? laughing
                The war never smelled in 1940. War (and a big war) smelled as early as 1938 (Munich agreement). And Vissarionitch did not care - he laid the battleships. In 1939, after the German invasion of Poland and the declaration of war by Germany by England and France, it became clear that a great European war was not far off. And Vissarionych continued to build the Big Fleet and nothing could distract him from this :))
                And only when Poland and Norway, France and Belgium fell, when Stalin faced the "brilliant" prospect of a one-on-one war with Germany, which was crushing the whole of Europe - only then did Vissarionich cut off shipbuilding programs. Just because the ships under construction did not get into the coming war (the beginning of which he assumed in 1942).
                1. -1
                  28 May 2015 10: 57
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  But the funny thing is that the Americans are not far from us. Their Wyomings and Texas were scary - on paper. In real life ... Yes, and Iron Duke with their narrow 305-mm strips of armor belts leaving the water department ...
                  In general, we know very well the flaws of our battleships, because they are ours. But the disadvantages of imported ones are relatively bad, because in the West no one is inclined to sprinkle ashes on their heads, a cry for technical shortcomings of their native ships.

                  Khikhiks ... Sevastopolesrach is the first discipline of the special Olympiad of the Tsushima forums. Archives of disputes over the Seva - this is about a third of all archives of the PMV branch. laughing
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  The war never smelled in 1940. War (and a big war) smelled as early as 1938 (Munich agreement). And Vissarionitch did not care - he laid the battleships. In 1939, after the German invasion of Poland and the declaration of war by Germany by England and France, it became clear that a great European war was not far off. And Vissarionych continued to build the Big Fleet and nothing could distract him from this :))

                  Ahem ... and you do not remember how the future Great War in Europe was presented to Soviet theorists? Until May 1940, both politicians and the General Staff were 99% sure that the WWI would be repeated - the Wehrmacht would run into the best army in Europe and the next positional battles would begin. But this time, Russia will remain neutral (since the Allies instead of signing an agreement made a farce) and will try to collect cream from the Reich.
                  That is, until June 1940, the war in Europe of the USSR did not directly threaten. And it was possible, along with the army, to slowly build the Big Fleet. It is unhurried - especially if we compare the situation in the NKSP with the mobilization and shock pumping of the same aviation industry.
      2. xan
        -1
        27 May 2015 16: 29
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Right. Because this country really appreciated the future war. And I understood that the main thing in it was not status naval toys, but the normal equipment of the army and the Air Force. The fate of the USSR was decided on land and in the air. And the best anti-ship tool were tanks on the berths of bases and aircraft at the surrounding airfields.

        I completely agree. It is necessary to win the war, not to hang out.
      3. +1
        27 May 2015 22: 02
        Alexey RA] 7 dreadnoughts. First generation. Which at the time of entry into the fleet were inferior to the already existing ships of other countries. And the construction of the Izmailov is generally a song. British guns, German turret parts. Result - the hulls were lowered, but no filling

        But: Between 1909 and 1917 7 battleship dreadnoughts of the types “Sevastopol” and “Empress Maria” were added to the navy of the Russian Empire.

        This is not counting the unfinished battleship “Emperor Nicholas I” and four superdreadnoughts of the Izmail type, which have already been launched
        и were in high [/ i] readiness - only the First World War and the Revolution did not allow the Russian shipbuilders to complete what they started. So that -ELEVEN.

        [i] Aleksey RA That's right. Because this country really appreciated the future war. And I understood that the main thing in it was not status naval toys, but the normal equipment of the army and the Air Force. The fate of the USSR was decided on land and in the air. And the best anti-ship tool were tanks on the berths of bases and aircraft at the surrounding airfields
        [/ I]
        Those. battleships "Soviet Union" - naval toys? belay
        The combat charter of the Navy of the Red Army - 1930 (BU-30) battleships were recognized as the main striking force of the fleet, And the result - the readiness of the "Soviet Union" was 19,44%, "Soviet Ukraine" - only 7%, "Soviet Belarus -1%!

        And how England, Italy, Germany, the USA, France were mistaken Yes!
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Which at the time of entry into the fleet were inferior to existing ships of other countries


        Maybe three countries and inferior. BUT STA countries-was an unattainable pattern. But the Navy of the 1941 model was already inferior to a dozen countries
        1. 0
          28 May 2015 10: 43
          Quote: Aleksander
          But: In the period from 1909 to 1917. the composition of the Navy of the Russian Empire was replenished with 7 battleship-dreadnought types of "Sevastopol" and "Empress Maria".

          This is not counting the unfinished battleship “Emperor Nicholas I” and four superdreadnoughts of the Izmail type, which were already launched and were in a high degree of [/ i] readiness - only the First World War and the Revolution did not allow the Russian shipbuilders to complete what they started. So, ELEVEN.

          Let me find out how it is possible to complete 4 LKR, having for them in October 1917 11 trunks of GK? And not having a complete set of epaulettes balls even for one tower - for they were ordered in Germany.
          The launch of Ishmael, Borodino, and Kinburn to water took place on June 9, July 19, and October 17, 1915, respectively; “Navarina” - October 27, 1916. However, the difficult economic and political situation in the country, delays in the supply of materials and equipment did not even allow the completion of the head cruiser. An important role in this was played by placing orders at enterprises in Germany and Austria-Hungary, some of which (for example, ball bearings and 203 mm steel balls under the bases of the rotating parts of the gun turrets) were not manufactured in Russia. Thus, the towers for Izmail could only be ready by the end of 1919, and for the rest of the ships next year.

          But the real degree of readiness of the ships:
          The degree of readiness of Izmail, Borodino, Kinburn, and Navarina as of mid-April, respectively, was: 65, 57, 52, and 50% for the case, systems, and devices; booking - 36, 13, 5, 2%; mechanisms - 66, 40, 22, 26,5%; boilers - 66, 38,4, 7,2 and 12,55%.

          Quote: Aleksander
          Those. battleships "Soviet Union" - naval toys?
          By the combat charter of the Red Army Naval Forces - 1930 (BU-30) battleships were recognized as the main striking force of the fleet, And the result-readiness of the "Soviet Union" was 19,44%, "Soviet Ukraine" - only 7%, "Soviet Belarus -1%!

          BU-30 is a fleet wishlist. The reality was that the USSR could not even design the aircraft itself - and had to order the prototype project from Ansaldo.
          For the fleet, the LCs were the main striking force. For the country as a whole - expensive toys.
          Quote: Aleksander
          Maybe three countries and inferior. And STA was an unattainable model for countries. But the Navy of 1941 was already inferior to a dozen countries

          The results are known. The country that built 7 LC broke down, devoured itself from the inside and lost the war. The country that put the construction of LC and Navy down the list won.
          1. 0
            28 May 2015 13: 00
            Quote: Alexey RA
            BU-30 - this is the Wishlist of the fleet. The reality was that the Soviet Union could not even design the LC itself


            The fleet could not have its own Wishlist, for then only one person had the right to Wishlist. The reality is really that RI-ABLE, but the next country is NO, although it really wanted to.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The results are known. The country that built 7 LC broke down, devoured itself from the inside and lost the war. The country that put the construction of LC and Navy down the list won.


            Are you serious? The country that built the 11 battleships lasted almost THOUSAND years, turning from a small community of principalities into the largest and most powerful country in the world. The country that "put the construction of the LC and the fleet down the list" - disappeared onlyin 70 years even without war and resistance. Is this a victory, in your opinion?
          2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Alf
      -1
      27 May 2015 19: 40
      Quote: Aleksander
      That is, the construction in eight years (1909-1917 years) of 11-dreadnought and super-dreadnought-

      Please list all the 11 dreadnoughts, and especially the SUPERDRAFT, built in Russia before the 17 year.
      1. 0
        27 May 2015 21: 29
        Quote: Alf
        Quote: Aleksander
        That is, the construction in eight years (1909-1917 years) of 11-dreadnought and super-dreadnought-

        Please list all the 11 dreadnoughts, and especially the SUPERDRAFT, built in Russia before the 17 year.


        Am I more authoritative than Google ?! belay And VO, how? http://topwar.ru/31473-pochemu-sssr-ne-postroil-ni-odnogo-linkora.html
      2. 0
        27 May 2015 21: 29
        Quote: Alf
        Quote: Aleksander
        That is, the construction in eight years (1909-1917 years) of 11-dreadnought and super-dreadnought-

        Please list all the 11 dreadnoughts, and especially the SUPERDRAFT, built in Russia before the 17 year.


        Am I more authoritative than Google ?! belay And VO, how? http://topwar.ru/31473-pochemu-sssr-ne-postroil-ni-odnogo-linkora.html
        1. +1
          27 May 2015 23: 44
          According to the link about how 30 years after the Tsar even leaders bought in the USSR - three scanty paragraphs from the whole article.
  13. 0
    27 May 2015 10: 47
    good article. thank!
  14. Prince Kalita
    -12
    27 May 2015 11: 20
    What is the Tsushima battle? Clash of two empires for dominance at sea. On the one hand, it is the pro-Western Romanov empire, which seized power in Russia by means of a coup against a real tsarist dynasty and introduced slavery in Russia - serfdom, on the other hand - the empire of Japanese samurai, who did not recognize this coup and fought for the return of power to the former royal dynasty.
    1. +3
      27 May 2015 12: 13
      He is what. And how, do the samurai themselves know? laughing In general, they are bad, samurai. They won, they won, but the true dynasty (which is, except for the Ruriks and Vadim Novgorodets, and Askold and Dir, however) were never returned. laughing
      1. Prince Kalita
        -5
        27 May 2015 13: 37
        The fight continues, although it never ends. An example is the October Socialist Revolution and the 1993 coup.
        1. 0
          27 May 2015 16: 34
          [quote = Prince Kalita] The struggle continues, although it never ended. An example is the October Socialist Revolution and the 1993 coup.

          Yes, what are you? Oh how. And, embarrassed to ask, is the samurai in the know? laughing
          1. Prince Kalita
            0
            28 May 2015 09: 23
            Samurai are very up to date. Like the rest of the world.
          2. Prince Kalita
            0
            28 May 2015 09: 23
            Samurai are very up to date. Like the rest of the world.
      2. Prince Kalita
        -3
        27 May 2015 13: 37
        The fight continues, although it never ends. An example is the October Socialist Revolution and the 1993 coup.
        1. +1
          27 May 2015 18: 02
          Don't idealize the Japanese. The Romanovs are, of course, a Western dynasty. But, firstly, they have long been Russified. Secondly, serfdom was abolished a long time ago before 1904, there is nothing to "sew" it here (although the Romanov sin is great here, but Moscow tsars also went to this, and with the church filing and with "blessing" - the same monastic peasants for a long time were in bondage). And thirdly, to weave "the children of the Yamato snake" into the defenders of Russian antiquity is a clinic. Still, aliens from Sirius were recorded there, with reference to the Egyptian pharaohs.
          1. Prince Kalita
            0
            28 May 2015 09: 31
            First, the Romanovs were not Russified. You are now writing in ersatz Russian. Secondly, do not repeat Romanov's inventions about monastic peasants - such were not in reality and could not be. Thirdly, the "children of the Yamato snake" were part of the Rurik state - their military unit in the Far East.
          2. Prince Kalita
            0
            28 May 2015 09: 31
            First, the Romanovs were not Russified. You are now writing in ersatz Russian. Secondly, do not repeat Romanov's inventions about monastic peasants - such were not in reality and could not be. Thirdly, the "children of the Yamato snake" were part of the Rurik state - their military unit in the Far East.
    2. +1
      27 May 2015 12: 21
      Quote: Prince Kalita
      What is the Tsushima battle? Clash of two empires for dominance at sea. On the one hand, it is the pro-Western Romanov empire, which seized power in Russia by means of a coup against a real tsarist dynasty and introduced slavery in Russia - serfdom, on the other hand - the empire of Japanese samurai, who did not recognize this coup and fought for the return of power to the former royal dynasty.

      But not without the direct participation of England, a direct rival of Russia, the Japanese empire is just more pro-Western, your version of events, dear, more than original.
      1. Prince Kalita
        -3
        27 May 2015 13: 41
        England has its own role in this struggle.
      2. Prince Kalita
        -1
        27 May 2015 13: 41
        England has its own role in this struggle.
      3. 0
        27 May 2015 14: 23
        Quote: From the article

        Russia had the opportunity to expel the Japanese from the mainland and occupy Korea, return Port Arthur, and win the war. However, St. Petersburg broke down and, under pressure from the “world community”, went to the shameful world. Russia was able to take revenge and regain its honor only under I.V. Stalin, in 1945.

        This was not just "pressure" - they promised the internationalization of the conflict as in the case of the Russian-Turkish War of 1853-1856.

        Wrecking of the quartermasters in the fleet also took place. Since the vertical aiming mechanisms refused, they had to shoot on belts. Japanese shimosa had a toxic effect.
        Then they still muddied the revolution.

        It would be possible to finish it only by landing on the islands, without a fleet or without aviation, this is nothing. In 1905 it was not yet.

        Memory and glory to the heroes! I had a friend Tsushimets.
        1. +2
          27 May 2015 18: 59
          Quote: Scraptor
          Japanese shimosa had a toxic effect.

          No more than TNT or any other nitrated organic matter.
          1. -2
            27 May 2015 19: 01
            More - shimoza is considered to be OV.
            1. Alf
              0
              27 May 2015 19: 46
              Quote: Scraptor
              More - shimoza is considered to be OV.

              Ssylochku, please.
              1. 0
                27 May 2015 19: 49
                You will find it yourself.
            2. 0
              7 June 2015 19: 08
              Quote: Scraptor
              More - shimoza is considered to be OV.

              Something is not indicated in any reference book on OM of chimosis (picric acid, trinitrophenol). The fact that any nitrated organic matter is far from sugar does not yet make it OM.
              1. 0
                7 June 2015 19: 12
                Because among the modern is absent. This OM is mainly of tear action.
        2. Alf
          0
          27 May 2015 19: 45
          Quote: Scraptor
          Wrecking of the quartermasters in the fleet also took place. Since the vertical aiming mechanisms refused, they had to shoot on belts.

          Oops, it turns out that the quartermasters are to blame for the breakdowns of the guns. Remind, please, WHO accepted the FRANCE artillery systems for the Russian fleet.
          1. 0
            27 May 2015 19: 49
            The word "intendant" also applies to arsystems. Not only on boots, footcloths and guns that they forced to clean with bricks.
    3. 0
      27 May 2015 15: 48
      Quote: Prince Kalita
      What is the Tsushima battle? Clash of two empires for dominance at sea. On the one hand, it is the pro-Western Romanov empire, which seized power in Russia by means of a coup against a real tsarist dynasty and introduced slavery in Russia - serfdom, on the other hand - the empire of Japanese samurai, who did not recognize this coup and fought for the return of power to the former royal dynasty.


      Yeah. Not knowing what you can’t imagine. Yes, even without basic knowledge.

      The true cause of the 1905 war. This is a section of spheres of influence. At the beginning of the 20th century, the era of colonialism was at its peak. The whole world has already been divided between the leading developed countries. It is established where whose and by what meridian or latitude passes.

      And here the latecomer enters the international arena - Japan. But there is already no free land, especially not far away. Something had to be done somehow. In 1900, relations between Japan and Russia were good. The Russian Pacific squadron lodged in the port of Nagasaki, since Vladivostok froze for half a year. But Japanese colonial appetites have already awakened.

      Manchuria was ruled by Russia. Japan proposed to Russia a division of spheres of influence. Pointing to the similar between England and Russia.

      In the mid-19th century, an agreement on the division of Iran was signed between the English and Russian empires. The middle part of Iran remained neutral. South retreated to England. Northern Russia. This explains the Transcaucasian wars of Russia, because then today's Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan were part of the decrepit Iranian empire.

      Russia took Manchuria from decrepit China. So Japan offered Russia, in the likeness of Iran, to divide Manchuria. Northern part of Russia. Southern Japan. Russia did not agree. Japan requested the withdrawal of the Pacific Fleet from Nagasaki. Russia withdrew, but the fleet needed an ice-free port. And the fleet was redeployed to Port Arthur.

      But Japan was preparing for the redrawing of colonial possessions and in 1904 began the war.
  15. +7
    27 May 2015 11: 26
    Quote: Portal
    Quote: 25ru
    You are still mistaken. The bookmarking date of this ship is October 02, 1905. But the idea was ripening for a long time and the project, of course, was created earlier than the results of Tsushima.


    Of course, the Tsushima battle is a tragedy of the Russian fleet. For me it’s so different.

    It would be better if the Japanese would sink only one ship from the entire squadron. Then they would not have allowed world tragedy.

    The 2nd Pacific squadron included one cruiser, named "Aurora". He remained intact. He returned to the Baltic. And on October 25, 1917, he fired a fatal shot that plunged Russia into the revolution and the tragedy of adversity.

    Of course, not unambiguously, but still.

    Here it is. The cruiser "Aurora" is the main reason for the 1917 revolution. And the wind is due to the trees swaying. Thank you for opening your eyes.
    1. -3
      27 May 2015 16: 01
      Quote: swertalf
      Here it is. The cruiser "Aurora" is the main reason for the 1917 revolution. And the wind is due to the trees swaying. Thank you for opening your eyes.


      It is bad to be slow-witted and interpret everything without taking into account the tone and caveat - not unambiguously, as a complete conclusion. Remove the brakes from the thinking process.
      1. 0
        27 May 2015 17: 21
        Quote: Portal
        Remove the brakes from the thinking process.

        Your words. Have you tried it yourself? laughing
        1. Alf
          0
          27 May 2015 19: 47
          Quote: tanit
          Your words. Have you tried it yourself?

          Shot, does not work. laughing
  16. +3
    27 May 2015 11: 28
    The author Samsonov writes interesting articles! )
    When I was young I read the novel "Tsushima" in Bulgarian. )
  17. 0
    27 May 2015 12: 23
    Quote: semirek
    In my opinion, the battle was lost due to the lower level of combat training. Simply put, they didn’t know how to shoot. Just shells did not hit the target

    Maneuvering is also not important. All the time they gave the enemy a message to "cover his head", after which he was knocked out one by one.
    It was necessary to go to the front, thereby using the nasal main command and control complex, all battleships. The turn "all of a sudden" also includes the entire main tank and the full board of the VC. We could have practiced on the hike. Although ten years later, in the battle of the Sarych umyach, there was the same story, strictly in the wake.
    1. -1
      27 May 2015 13: 02
      Quote: Denimax
      Quote: semirek
      In my opinion, the battle was lost due to the lower level of combat training. Simply put, they didn’t know how to shoot. Just shells did not hit the target

      Maneuvering is also not important. All the time they gave the enemy a message to "cover his head", after which he was knocked out one by one.
      It was necessary to go to the front, thereby using the nasal main command and control complex, all battleships. The turn "all of a sudden" also includes the entire main tank and the full board of the VC. We could have practiced on the hike. Although ten years later, in the battle of the Sarych umyach, there was the same story, strictly in the wake.

      This quote is not mine, dear, be careful.
      The second point: the ships do not fight in front: in addition to the main caliber, there is also airborne artillery. The Japanese were waiting for the squadron, the main mistake of Rozhdestvensky was that they immediately allowed the Japanese to enter from both sides of our convoy, take left to the mainland, there would be less loss .Of course, Rozhdestvensky had a plan: how to meet the Japanese, how to start, etc. But everyone understood the doom even before the battle - the matter was in fewer warships, and the unfamiliar sea, many factors that came together as one - the death of the squadron .
  18. 0
    27 May 2015 12: 42
    Quote: 25ru
    Quote: Almatinets
    Pikul "Cruiser" - I recommend,

    I will add: V. Pikul "Three ages of Okini-san"; G. Tsyvinsky "Fifty Years in the Russian Imperial Navy"; V. Tsibulko "Unread Pages of Tsushima"; V.Kostenko "On the" Eagle "in Tsushima".
    Interested enough to start.

    I recommend additionally "Rurik was the first", Melnikova RM, a wonderful book. Contains a complete analysis, from the design of ships and their construction to the course of the battle itself and the reasons for the defeat.
    1. -1
      27 May 2015 13: 02
      Rurik died before Tsushima.
      1. -1
        28 May 2015 16: 03
        The book is written not only about the cruiser "Rurik", it also examines the Russian - Japanese war in general and the reasons for the defeat.
  19. +3
    27 May 2015 14: 35
    They sailed with complete doom and disbelief in victory, how with such a spirit it was possible to launch a squadron against an experienced enemy halfway around the world - for me personally, a riddle and great stupidity, like the whole reign of Nicholas II. There are many testimonies of the participants of this campaign and can be quoted before turning blue, but only one can be cited:

    In August 1904, before the 2nd squadron left Kronstadt, in the brilliant wardroom of the battleship Alexander III, the wives and relatives of the officers and a selected civilian audience gathered for a farewell banquet. Seeing off was solemn. Every now and then on a luxuriously set table, set by a battery of bottles, dishes and flowers, glasses of champagne with toasts rose to the glory of Russian weapons. The parting speeches of the guests were warm, wishes for victory over the enemy and a happy return to their homeland. And in the midst of noisy applause, gloomy words suddenly came out. Enthusiastic audience answered the commander of the battleship "Alexander III", captain 1st rank Bukhvostov:

    “You look and think how everything is well arranged here.” And I’ll tell you that not everything is good here. You wish us victory. Needless to say, as we wish her. But there will be no victory! .. I am afraid that we will lose half of the squadron on the way, and if this does not happen, then the Japanese will break us: their fleet is better and the sailors are real. I vouch for one thing: we will all die, but we will not give up ...

    Bukhvostov finished. In the wardroom, it became quiet, like in a morgue. The smart audience was stunned. Not only was the speech mournful, but what was most depressing to those present was that such a memorial to the Russian fleet was delivered by one of the best naval commanders - a candidate for admiral. They didn’t expect this from Bukhvostov, who had recently celebrated the bicentennial of the Preobrazhensky Regiment as a descendant of the first guards soldier.

    The commander’s words were prophetic. But they sounded not to the whole country, which did not know anything about the unpreparedness of its fleet, but only within the narrow walls of the wardroom.

    And that says COMMANDER !! the ship, which was considered the best battleship of the squadron and manned by the GUARD !! crew before sailing !!! There is nothing more to add, the curtain))
  20. 0
    27 May 2015 15: 05
    And what Witte is to blame for, but his financial report was also based on intelligence. Intelligence clearly and Russian on ink reported a war no earlier than 1905. Apparently - the Japanese knew about it.
    The question is not for Witte and not for intelligence.
  21. 0
    27 May 2015 15: 13
    Not a single admiral. No one. Makarov is a great man. Great engineer. But, was he the Great Admiral dash naval commander? Controversial issue with controversial answers.
    One way or another - Stepan Osipovich - this is the best military mind of the empire. At least in that rank.
    1. -1
      27 May 2015 15: 40
      Quote: tanit
      Not a single admiral. No one. Makarov is a great man. Great engineer. But, was he the Great Admiral dash naval commander? Controversial issue with controversial answers.
      One way or another - Stepan Osipovich - this is the best military mind of the empire. At least in that rank.

      Hmm ... Stepan Osipovich was too keen on a person. "Armorless ships" and "lightweight shells" are his concepts. The latter backfired on us in RYAV.

      Moreover, how commander Makarov was good. But as fleet commander ... he did die as a result of a whole series of his own mistakes.
      - At first I didn’t order to check the square where suspicious silhouettes were noticed,
      - then - he made a mess with the departure of the fleet to the aid of the dying MM (instead of the duty officer, the KR sent the Bayan, which was standing in the harbor, to help, which was late, and to whose help the EBR had to be hastily withdrawn),
      - then he divided the EBR and almost substituted a pair of his battleships ("Petropavlovsk" and "Poltava") for a full Japanese squadron of 6 EBRs and 2 BNKR (it's good that the Japanese had other plans and they only pretended to chase, provoking Makarov into stereotyped actions )
      - and, finally, once again arranged a formulaic fleet maneuvering in the "eight" - and led the fleet to the very point where the Japanese, having studied the maneuvers of the Russian admiral, set a mine bank.
  22. AAV
    0
    27 May 2015 15: 34
    You can also read about the Battle of Tsushima in the novel by Nikolai Cherkashin "Mysterious Fate of the Sea".
  23. 0
    27 May 2015 15: 35
    Yes, earlier the thought sounded, but how would it have turned out, while Togo was "doubled", went ahead, and at 12 inches, we were not inferior to the Japanese, and rotten shells, at a shorter distance, the armor of any enemy, took ...
  24. +2
    27 May 2015 15: 48
    Dear Samsonov Alexander!
    I ask you - do not write a sequel to this article. You did not understand the topic at all, as a result of which your article is a pile of common myths about Tsushima and the second or third Pacific squadrons.
    If you are going to write further, and I already guess what - about the allegedly poor training of the Russian artillerymen, the "catostrophic" coal overloading of the Russian EBRs, the inept command of Rozhdestvensky - I will have to write a refutation.
    1. AAV
      0
      27 May 2015 16: 59
      Dear Andrey, if you write your series of articles, I think everyone will be interested to compare your view and the view of Alexander Samsonov on the events of the Russo-Japanese War.
    2. stranik72
      +1
      27 May 2015 20: 59
      We are pleased to read how you will refute the "allegedly poor training" of the Russian artillerymen, provided that during the battle not a single large Japanese ship was sunk.
      1. +1
        27 May 2015 21: 22
        Are you aware that vertical aiming mechanisms failed and few Russian shells exploded?
      2. +1
        28 May 2015 16: 05
        On the issue of poor training of Russian crews. Quote:
        Back in October, in a letter to a colleague on Z. P. Rozhestvensky’s squadron, one of the “Russia” officers reported that “our shells, without breaking into so many small fragments and having slower tubes, inflicted them (the Japanese. - R. M.) very substantial damage. " According to him, the American attache, who visited our cruisers, "strenuously sought to know what shells we shot, - he probably knew about the damage to the Japanese." Yes, the Americans were surprised, but, as it soon became clear, not the destructiveness of damage, but their insignificance. The first information about this became known from the Rurik priest Aleksey Okonechnikov who returned from captivity, who spoke about the holes of the correct form from Russian shells, which the Japanese carefully plugged. The slow two-capsule Brink fuse in Russian shells (both armor-piercing and high-explosive) was invented so that, having pierced armor or another obstacle, the shell could explode already indoors, hitting equipment and people in it. When hit in a thin side, such a projectile often did not have time to burst, flying overboard, and if it burst, then due to the low content of explosives it could not cause great damage. Only then, after the priest’s story, did the cruiser artillery “suspect” about the low quality of the shells, but only the Tsushima catastrophe gave [206] K. P. Jessen the courage to organize in the firing squad to test the actions of all the shells. The test report, confirming all the worst suspicions, K. P. Jessen in his report called "directly accusatory and revealing a terrifying picture of the reasons for our successive failures and defeats at sea throughout this war" The meeting of September 5, 1905 was the last lesson of the war at sea at the Kornilov Bay (port of Rasin) of "Russia", "Bogatyr" and destroyers "Bravy" and "Grozny" with the Japanese cruisers "Ivate", "Niytaka" and destroyers "Oboro" and "Akebono". After a meeting on “Russia” about the details of the implementation of the peace treaty already concluded in Portsmouth (USA), the Russian officers who accompanied K. P. Jessen on a visit to “Iwat” saw the very neatly closed holes from Russian shells at the ramp . There were seven at a short distance from each other. “If Russian shells were torn like Japanese ones,” wrote V. Ye. Egoriev, “hitting seven shells in such a limited space of the board would probably have led to almost a continuous hole.” Source: Melnikov R. M. “Rurik” was the first. - Shipbuilding, 1989
  25. -3
    27 May 2015 17: 01
    Low degree of training - yes. Moral state - rather, yes.
    Based on the morale - "want to live, Port Arthur passed, and why are we going to die."
    17 live fighters, the fortress - not taken for almost a year. But-surrenders. (tell the Osovts defenders how not to give up)
    Lost battle, penetrating war. Fallen Empire. Naturally.
    Almost-Osovets did not fit. hi
    Rot and dirty tricks. With a well-deserved end. soldier
    1. 0
      27 May 2015 17: 04
      and material sabotage - no?
      a syphilitic one with a hope of Konstantinovna fit in and before him transvestites in ladies' dresses - you rot and dirty tricks ...
  26. 0
    27 May 2015 17: 11
    Quote: igordok
    Alas, cheers-patriotism in 1904. was too much.



    Interesting posters of those times at http://humus.livejournal.com/3449779.html

    At a distance of 5 miles, it would be so. Like on a poster. hi
  27. +3
    27 May 2015 17: 33
    I think the main mistake was the breakout mindset. With a tremendous "variability" and difference in speed, Rozhdestvensky's fleet was doomed. In fact, the tragedy of the "Varyag" - "Korean" pair was repeated, only increased by an order of magnitude. When divided into 2 equivalent columns, it was possible to beat Togo in parts, on 2 sides, "tying" the advanced Japanese battleships to our slow-moving coastal defense battleships. The main thing was not to run forward, but to try to cover the "heads" of the Japanese columns ourselves, even if the battle was split into 2 separate battles. And of course, shells, shells ... And the lack of armored cruisers. As for the training of Russian gunners, as many have posted above, I do not agree. "Takuga Zen" was certainly not practiced, but they fired pretty well. As far as I remember, the testimonies of American naval observer officers spoke of dozens (!) Of dents from unexploded shells of the main caliber on Japanese battleships, including the Mikasa. The same battle of a single battleship "Ushakov" surrounded by Japanese armored cruisers speaks of a very decent combat capability of the crew. Conclusion: the reason for such a nightmarish defeat is lack of initiative, coupled with stereotyped, plus a "shell" question.
  28. The comment was deleted.
  29. Alf
    0
    27 May 2015 19: 52
    So, on the Black Sea there were four battleships of the Catherine type, the battleships of the Twelve Apostles and Rostislav, the relatively new pre-dreadnought Three Saints, almost completed Prince Potemkin-Tauride. Only after such a mobilization of all available forces could a reinforced fleet be sent to the Pacific Ocean.

    And who would allow Russia to lead the Battleships through the straits?
    Before the exit of the 2nd squadron, an island power suddenly accused Turkey of violating its neutrality and forced it to close the Straits.
  30. 0
    27 May 2015 20: 23
    Quote: andrew42
    I believe that the main mistake was the installation of a breakthrough

    You do not want, but there was no other port of arrival, only for a breakthrough.
    Quote: andrew42
    With its stunning "variability" and difference in speed, Rozhdestvensky's fleet was doomed. In fact, the tragedy of the "Varyag" - "Korean" pair was repeated, only increased by an order of magnitude.

    The Japanese have the same diversity. The Varangian and the Korean had a greater power difference.
    Quote: andrew42
    When divided into 2 equivalent columns, it was possible to beat Togo in parts, on 2 sides, "tying" the advanced Japanese battleships to our slow-moving coastal defense battleships. The main thing was not to run forward, but to try to cover the "heads" of the Japanese columns by ourselves, even if breaking the battle into 2 separate battles.

    Having no advantage in the course, it is difficult to impose your tactics. Although it can be found in all weapons. What has not been done.
    Quote: andrew42
    And of course, shells, shells ..

    Wow, no comment.
    Quote: andrew42
    As for the training of Russian gunners, as many have posted above, I do not agree. "Takuga Zen" was certainly not practiced, but they fired pretty well.

    In my opinion this is fiction, the gunner must adhere to ballistic science. All the same, a ship duel, this is not archery at an accumulation of infantry. Chargers can probably fall into such a state.)
    I met that the Japanese had simulators for loading guns.
  31. 0
    29 May 2015 09: 34
    Everyone knows about miscalculations in the preparation and implementation of the campaign! But unfortunately the tragedy was inevitable! And it’s not the fault of Admiral of the Christmas and especially heroic sailors of the Baltic Fleet. To some extent, the tragedy affected many in St. Petersburg and almost everyone in Kronstadt! 5000 Orthodox souls !!!
    An investigation by the imperial commission led by Admiral Gustav Konstantinovich von Schulz (future founder of the navy of independent Finland) found that during the preparation of the expedition it was decided to increase the humidity of pyroxylin to 30% instead of the prescribed 10-12%, since it was supposed to be used in tropical conditions !! Togo Admiral made a mistake (Togo loop), which was then attributed to him as a merit, and every Japanese battleship passed through a point shot by Russian battleships !! Almost all the main ships of Japan received several hits, including the flagship battleship hit 305 mm shell in the commander’s cabin !! But 90% of the shells did not explode !!! But the most interesting is that traffic jams were prepared on Japanese ships to eliminate holes !! That is, they knew that Russian shells would not explode !! So much for Japanese intelligence !! (Kupin's story).
    So, if Stalin had not destroyed the fifth column, it is clear how the Great Patriotic War could have ended !! And Nicholas II, was a worthless tsar, also to me "the owner of the Russian land"!
    "In the distant Strait of Tsushima"
    “When nature falls asleep / And the bright moon is shining, / Heroes of the deceased fleet / Get up awakening from sleep. / They start a conversation - / And furiously clenching their fists, / About those who sold and betrayed them, / Sailors speak all night. / They remember Tsushima, / His vain courage, / And the sky is far from life, / And death in an unequal battle. "
    Eternal memory to heroes !!!
    1. -2
      29 May 2015 12: 33
      Quote: JääKorppi
      worthless king

      I’m just not Russian ...
  32. 0
    29 May 2015 09: 41
    Quote: qwert
    the Japanese were not called other than "macaques".

    Now the same thing (in terms of names) - "pindos", "gayropeians", "dill" and so on.
    This is an element of boosting morale.
  33. 0
    4 August 2023 02: 06
    The swan song of the armored fleet. Alas, not in our favor. But how beautiful they are.